R v Amato (No 3) - [2021] ACTSC 242

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Amato (No 3)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 242
Hearing Date:	15, 17, 20, 21, 22 September 2021
DecisionDate:	24 September 2021
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	The accused is found Not Guilty of both counts in the indictment dated 3 May 2021
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Manslaughter – Grievous Bodily Harm – causation – whether deceased pushed by accused
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 15, 25 Evidence Act 2001 (ACT) s 165 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Cases Cited:	Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Reynolds v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 29 Royall v The Queen [1991] HCA 27; 172 CLR 378 R v Amato [2021] ACTSC 155 R v Amato (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 234 R v Wright; R v Lowe [2009] NSWDC 251 Swan v The Queen [2020] HCA 11
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Mario Amato ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen ( Crown) J White SC ( Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Accused)
File Number:	SCC 219 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

On 16 April 2021 the accused filed an election for trial by judge alone, in accordance with s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT).

At the commencement of the trial, the accused was arraigned on an indictment dated 3 May 2021. It contains two counts. The accused pleaded not guilty to both counts. They are:

(a)Count 1: Committing manslaughter contrary to s 15 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
(b)Count 2: Causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). (The Crown did not rely on any statutory alternative).

Before looking at the evidence, it is necessary to state some of the fundamental legal principles that are to be applied before arriving at a verdict. These are essentially standard directions.

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent. He is referred to as an accused because the indictment is essentially no more than a formal allegation against him.

Suspicion and probability must play no part in my decision-making. As long as I find there is a reasonable doubt, the accused must be found not guilty.

The facts that I find must be based on the evidence, that is the evidence given by the witnesses and that contained in any exhibits. In addition, in assessing the evidence, I must apply my common sense. I must do so with an open and unbiased mind, hearing the evidence clinically and dispassionately and not letting emotion enter into the decision-making process.

In relation to accepting the evidence of witnesses, I am not obliged to accept the whole of the evidence of any one witness. I may accept part and reject part of the same witness’s evidence. The fact that I do not accept a portion of the evidence of a witness does not mean…

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 R v Amato (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Amato (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 242
Case: [2021] ACTSC 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Elkaim J) handed down its decision on 24 September 2021 in R v Amato (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 242. The accused, Mario Amato, was tried on an indictment for two counts: (1) manslaughter contrary to s 15 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT); and (2) causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The accused pleaded not guilty to both counts. The deceased, Sheila Capper, died on 4 December 2018. The Crown case was that the deceased fell after the accused pushed her in the hallway of the Southern Cross Care Residential Aged Care Facility in Campbell, Canberra. The deceased sustained a fractured right hip and other injuries. The Crown submitted that the fracture was a significant cause of the deceased’s death. The accused submitted that there were other causes for the death, including pre-existing medical conditions and sepsis. The court found the accused not guilty on both counts. The court accepted the Crown’s concession that only a deliberate and forceful push could constitute the necessary act for the offences. The court found that the deceased’s statements that the accused pushed her were unreliable. The court found that the CCTV footage was not reliable evidence of the deceased being pushed. The court found that there were other reasonable hypotheses that could explain the deceased’s fall.

Orders