Legal Research
Cases
Marrogi v The King

Marrogi v The King

Case [2023] VSCA 83 19 April 2023

Appeal

Conviction

Murder

Circumstantial Evidence

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2022 0067

GEORGE MARROGI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, MACAULAY and HARGRAVE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 March 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 April 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 83
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Marrogi (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 15 December 2021, Coghlan JA) (Conviction)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Circumstantial case – Whether jury’s verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence – No hypothesis consistent with innocence reasonably open – Leave to appeal refused – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 276(1)(a) – M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 – R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr M Morrissey SC with Ms A Dixon
Respondent:		Mr B F Kissane KC with Mr G Buchhorn
Solicitors
Applicant:	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
MACAULAY JA
HARGRAVE JA:

Introduction

Kadir Ors (for the sake of convenience, ‘Ors’), a man aged 24 years, was shot dead at about 3.24 pm on Monday, 26 September 2016, in the vicinity of the Campbellfield Shopping Plaza (‘the Plaza’) carpark. George Marrogi, the applicant, then aged 27,[1] was charged with his murder. More than five years later, on 15 December 2021, a jury in the Supreme Court found the applicant guilty of Ors’ murder.[2] On 29 April 2022, the trial judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for 32 years, with a non-parole period of 27 years.[3]
[1]His date of birth is 25 March 1989.
[2]There were three previous trials. In the first trial, the jury failed to agree upon a verdict. In the other two trials, the jury was discharged without verdict because of juror difficulties.
[3]DPP v Marrogi [2022] VSC 210.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on a ground that contends that the jury’s verdict
is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence because on the whole of the evidence, it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was the person who shot and killed the deceased.
We would refuse leave to appeal. For the reasons that follow, we consider that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt ‘that the applicant was the person who shot and killed the deceased’.

Overview of the shooting

As we have mentioned, Ors was fatally shot in the vicinity of the Plaza carpark during the afternoon of 26 September 2016.
The Plaza carpark, which services the shopping complex, is roughly oblong in shape, and is oriented north-south. At the northern end of the carpark is an Officeworks store (‘Officeworks’), the entrance to which faces west onto the carpark. Immediately in front of the store, angle parking bays adjoin the footpath. The north-western corner of the shopping complex buildings is situated a short distance north along the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Marrogi v The King

Details

AGLC: Marrogi v The King [2023] VSCA 83
Case: [2023] VSCA 83
Decision Date: 19 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Marrogi, was convicted of murder and appealed against his conviction. The court considered whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The key issue was whether a hypothesis consistent with innocence was reasonably open to the jury. The appeal hinged on the evaluation of the circumstantial evidence and whether it was sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt. The court had to determine if the evidence pointed to the appellant’s guilt to the exclusion of all other reasonable possibilities.

The court examined the evidence presented at trial and the reasoning of the jury in reaching their verdict. The circumstantial evidence included the appellant’s presence at the scene, his relationship with the victim, and the timeline of events. The court considered whether the evidence was strong enough to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. After thorough analysis, the court found that no reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence was open to the jury, given the evidence presented. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, finding the jury’s verdict was both reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Given the reasoning above, the court refused leave to appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The decision was based on the precedents set in M v The Queen and R v Baden-Clay, where similar evaluations of circumstantial evidence and jury verdicts were considered. The court found that the evidence was compelling and the jury's verdict was rational and supported by the facts. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder stood.

Orders