R v Beljajev - [2007] VSC 308

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.1543 of 2006

THE QUEEN

BORIS BELJAJEV

---

JUDGE:	Curtain J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 July, 2007
DATE OF RULING:	21 August, 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Boris Beljajev
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 308	Revised 14 September 2007

---

Criminal Law – Murder – “No Case” Submission upheld

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Richter Q.C.	Mr T Magazis

HER HONOUR:

At the conclusion of the Crown case Mr Richter QC on behalf of the accused, Boris Beljajev, submitted that there was no case to answer. After hearing argument by Mr Richter and the learned prosecutor, Mr Tinney in reply, I upheld the submission and directed the jury accordingly. Consequently, the jury entered a verdict of not guilty to murder.

The applicable principles are as stated in Doney’s case:

If there is evidence (even if tenuous or inherently weak or vague) which can be taken into account by the jury in its deliberations and that evidence is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the matter must be left to the jury for its decision. Or, to put the matter in its more usual terms a verdict of not guilty may be directed if there is a defect in the evidence such that taken at its highest it will not sustain a verdict of guilty.[1]

[1](1990) 171 CLR 207 at 214-5.

The sole issue in dispute is the identity of the killer, that is, whether the Crown can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who killed Mr Ristic.

There are no eye-witnesses to the killing, no evidence of positive identification of the accused, no forensic evidence linking the accused to the killing, no weapon retrieved, no admissions by the accused and no motive. The case against the accused is entirely circumstantial and Mr Tinney conceded that it was not a strong one.

The Crown case consists of statements made by the deceased to his wife the night before he met his death, that he was going to meet Boris (whom she said her husband referred to as Ben) the following day and various statements made to his mother, Nada Ristic, made on the morning and early afternoon preceding the stabbing, that he was going to meet “Boris, Boris and Kissa” and “someone.” The latter comment being made after he had received a call from a female. The Crown would invite the jury to infer from that evidence that the deceased intended to meet with the accused, and taken together with other evidence that he did so meet with the accused.

Mrs Nada Ristic made a telephone call to her son from the Medical One Surgery at 12.31pm. Mr Ristic then drove his mother to the Balaclava shops and dropped her there saying that he would return to collect her. At 12.34pm the deceased made…

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 Beljajev

Details

AGLC: R v Beljajev [2007] VSC 308
Case: [2007] VSC 308
Decision Date: 21 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Beljajev, the defendant, Beljajev, was charged with the murder of an individual. The dispute centred around whether there was sufficient evidence to establish Beljajev's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove his involvement in the murder, and a "no case" submission was made. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had presented a case that, if accepted as true by the jury, would allow them to find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The court assessed the evidence presented by the prosecution, considering its sufficiency to establish the elements of murder, including intent and causation. It examined witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and other material presented by the prosecution. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there were significant inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case. Therefore, the "no case" submission was upheld, and the charges against Beljajev were dismissed.

Consequently, the court directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty for the defendant. The decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence to establish the defendant's involvement in the murder. This outcome underscores the importance of the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Orders