CITATION: Mudiawati Leota v R [2007] NSWDC 146
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 10.5.07, 25.5.07, 22.6.07
JUDGMENT DATE:
22 June 2007JURISDICTION: Criminal JUDGMENT OF: Woods QC DCJ DECISION: 25.5.07 Appeal Upheld. Conviction and sentence imposed by Magistrate are quashed.; 22.6.07 Direction that the respondent pay costs in the sum of $18,766 to the Registrar or the Local Court at North Sydney within sixty days. CATCHWORDS: Offences against justice - failure to bring information to attention of police - misprision of felony - costs in criminal cases LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001PARTIES: Mudiawati Leota [Appellant]
NSW DPP [Respondent]FILE NUMBER(S): 06/12/1403 COUNSEL: Mr J Mehta (NSW DPP)
Mr G Jones, Mr B Clarke (Appellant)
1 HIS HONOUR: The Bells Hotel in Woolloomooloo is a social and literary landmark of Sydney. In the early 1950’s it was purchased by Jimmy Carruthers after his retirement as a world champion boxer. This inspired the lines by poet Kenneth Slessor,
“God help the man who starts a blue
"In the Bells Hotel in Woolloomooloo...”
2 A “blue” in the Australian vernacular is a dispute or fight. This case is about a fight which took place in the Bells Hotel in Woolloomooloo on 17 or 18 December 2004. Unlike Jimmy Carruthers in this respect, the publican was no fighter. He was a peaceful and sociable businessman. In a front bar brawl, he died from a blow or blows through no fault of his own, and notwithstanding the assistance of his family and fellow workers who unsuccessfully came to his aid.
3 This is an appeal to the District Court against the conviction on 20 September 2006 in the Local Court at North Sydney of Mudiawati Leota for an offence against section 316 of New South Wales Crimes Act. The charge was, in brief, that she failed to do her duty and inform police of her knowledge that her husband and or three of his friends had murdered the publican at the Bells Hotel and caused grievous bodily harm.
4 Following police investigations, suspicion fell upon certain people, particularly Joseph Leota, the husband of the appellant and three friends of his.
5 On 14 February 2005, following appropriate warrants being obtained, a listening device was covertly installed at the house at Merrylands occupied by Joseph Leota and the appellant, his wife. Merrylands is a suburb in the west of Sydney, about thirty kilometres from Woolloomooloo.
6 Joseph Leota is a man of south sea island background; the appellant is from an Indonesian background.
7 On 18 February 2005 police released a compilation tape which showed closed circuit television footage of the brawl on the night of 17 or 18 December 2004 when the publican killed. Other television news footage showed a senior police officer calling for people possessing relevant information to come forward (Exhibit 4).
8 On 26 February 2005 the covert listening device…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Mudiawati Leota v The Queen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] NSWDC 146
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions constituted a failure to bring information to the attention of the police, as required by the relevant statute. Additionally, the court had to determine if the appellant's coercion and subsequent distancing from the criminal activity were sufficient to negate her liability for the offence. The court also needed to address the issue of costs in criminal cases, specifically the amount to be paid by the respondent.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the appellant's actions did not meet the threshold for a conviction of misprision of felony. The court held that her failure to report the crime was due to coercion, and her subsequent efforts to distance herself from the criminal activity were considered mitigating factors. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the magistrate were quashed. The court also directed that the respondent pay costs in the sum of $18,766 to the Registrar or the Local Court at North Sydney within sixty days.
Orders
Orders of the court
25.5.07 Appeal Upheld. Conviction and sentence imposed by Magistrate are quashed.; 22.6.07 Direction that the respondent pay costs in the sum of $18,766 to the Registrar or the Local Court at North Sydney within sixty days.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.