R. v. Camilleri - [2001] VSCA 14

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 86 of 1999

THE QUEEN
	v.
LESLIE ALFRED CAMILLERI

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., BROOKING and ORMISTON, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	31 January, 1 and 5 February 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 March 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 14

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Consciousness of guilt – No particular standard of proof where merely one piece of evidence – Murder following rape – Previous attack on different victim in similar circumstances – Admissibility and permissible use – Concert – “Presence” at scene – Remote rural area – Manslaughter – No basis in evidence to warrant leaving to jury.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Life without possibility of parole upheld.

Crimes Act 1958, s.398A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Hicks, S.C. Mr P.B. Kidd	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr M. Croucher	Stary Myall

PHILLIPS, C.J.:
BROOKING, J.A.:

Introduction

There is no doubt that on 6 October 1997 two schoolgirls, Lauren Barry, aged 14, and Nichole Collins, aged 16, were murdered in remote bushland at Fiddler’s Green Creek. There is no doubt that in the ten hours before their death they had been repeatedly raped and that they had, in the hours of darkness and the early morning that followed, been driven long distances in a car in company with two men, Leslie Alfred Camilleri and his friend, Lindsay Hoani Beckett. There is no doubt that the two girls were murdered by Beckett. He ultimately confessed to the crimes and pleaded guilty without any committal and is now serving two life sentences. Camilleri stood his trial and Beckett was the main witness against him. He was convicted after a long trial and he too is now serving life sentences. Unlike Beckett, who will be eligible for parole after serving 35 years[1], Camilleri was sentenced to life without possibility of parole. He wishes to appeal against conviction and, in the alternative, sentence. He gave no evidence on his trial, which ran from 15 February to 10 April 1999. His defence was that he was in a drug-induced sleep for most of the long car journey and that his companion, Beckett, alone violated and murdered the two girls, who had gone missing in New South Wales near Bega in circumstances which quickly became notorious and whose fate was not known until several weeks after their disappearance.
[1]He sought leave to appeal against sentence without success: R. v. Beckett [1998] VSCA 148.

Both girls being dead, the crimes having from the outset attracted very widespread publicity, Beckett’s application for leave to appeal against the minimum term having already been dealt with and Camilleri having been tried and sentenced, there is no point in our trying to protect the identity of the victims or their families. That has long been impossible.

Background to the crimes

It was on Friday, 3 October 1997 that the father of Nichole Collins set up a campsite, not…

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. Camilleri

Details

AGLC: R. v. Camilleri [2001] VSCA 14
Case: [2001] VSCA 14
Decision Date: 7 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R. v. Camilleri, the respondent stood accused of the heinous crime of murder, following the rape of a young woman in a remote rural area. The prosecution also sought to introduce evidence of a prior attack on a different victim under similar circumstances to demonstrate consciousness of guilt. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which had to determine several critical legal issues. These included the admissibility and appropriate use of evidence pertaining to the prior attack, the interpretation of "presence" at the scene in a remote rural context, and the legal standards applicable to proving consciousness of guilt when only one piece of evidence was available.

The court examined whether the evidence of the prior attack was admissible and could be used to establish the respondent's consciousness of guilt. It was determined that while such evidence might be pertinent, its admissibility and use were constrained by the rules of evidence and the specific circumstances of the case. The court also considered whether the respondent was "present" at the scene in a manner that fulfilled the legal requirements for complicity in the crime, particularly given the remote nature of the location. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not meet the necessary standard to leave the issue of consciousness of guilt to the jury. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis to establish the respondent's involvement in the murder, leading to an acquittal on the murder charge.

The court then turned its attention to the sentence for the charge of manslaughter, which was the only conviction upheld. The court assessed the appropriate punishment under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1958, particularly section 398A, which governs sentencing for murder. After considering the severity of the crime and the respondent's criminal history, the court upheld the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This decision underscored the gravity of the offence and the need for severe punishment commensurate with the nature of the crime.

Orders