R v Camilleri - [1999] VSC 159

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 1605 of 1998

THE QUEEN

LESLIE ALFRED CAMILLERI

---

JUDGE:	VINCENT, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF RULING:	16 FEBRUARY 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSC 159

---

CATCHWORDS: Similar fact evidence – Abduction – Rape – Murder – Acting in concert – Joint enterprise – Probative value weighed against prejudicial effect of evidence -–Section 398A Crimes Act – R. v. Best (unreported, 23 July 1998) – Evidence admissible.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Hicks and Mr. P. Kidd	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. S. Langslow and Mr. G. Mullaly	Stary George Myall

HIS HONOUR:

Prior to the empanelment of a jury, Mr. Langslow who, with Mr. Mullaly of counsel, appears on behalf of the accused man, objected to the introduction into the trial of the evidence which it is anticipated would be given by and relating to a young woman named Rose Gandarias.

Briefly described, that prospective witness, it is anticipated, would describe an event which, she asserts, took place approximately three weeks prior to the time at which the two victims in the present matters were abducted. According to her statements, Miss Gandarias was inveigled into a motor car owned by the accused man and in which he was present with a person, named Lindsay Beckett, who has already pleaded guilty to the murder of the two girls. During the ensuing period of 12 hours Miss Gandarias was, she claims, held captive, transported over a considerable distance from Canberra where she entered the car, and subjected to repeated acts of rape, physical violence and threatened violence until she managed to escape.

Whilst, as Mr. Langslow has correctly pointed out, during the presentation of oral submission, many of the features associated with the incident regrettably may be described as not untypical in situations of abduction and rape, it is evident that, considered in totality, if her evidence is accepted, what happened to Miss Gandarias bears striking similarities to what could possibly be inferred from the objectively demonstrable circumstances, and what is asserted by Beckett, occurred to the two victims here.

Mr. Hicks of counsel, who appears as senior counsel on behalf of the prosecution, has provided the Court with a list of a number of common features which, he contends, and which I accept, may be observed in the two occurrences.

Rather than set them out seriatim, that list has been incorporated as Appendix A to this ruling. The separate features contained in it, of course, vary substantially in significance and some, considered separately, may be perceived as inconsequential.

The evidence of Miss Gandarias possesses, the prosecution has argued, considerable probative value in the present context. Again, rather than recite the contentions as to relevance upon which reliance was placed in support of this argument, the written outline with which the Court was provided, and on the basis of which discussion proceeded, has been incorporated as…

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 [1999] VSC 159
Case: [1999] VSC 159
Decision Date: 16 February 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Camilleri, the defendant faced charges related to abduction, rape, and murder. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of a similar fact in relation to the defendant’s prior conduct. The court was required to determine whether this evidence was admissible under section 398A of the Crimes Act, considering the balance between its probative value and potential prejudicial effect.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the admissibility of similar fact evidence, particularly in a context where the defendant was accused of acting in concert with others in a joint enterprise. The court needed to assess whether the evidence of the defendant’s previous conduct could assist in establishing a key fact in issue, specifically the identity of the perpetrator, without unfairly prejudicing the jury against the defendant.

The court found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. It drew on the principles established in the unreported decision of R v Best, where it was held that evidence of similar fact could be admissible if it substantially assisted in determining an issue of identity. The court noted that the similarities between the prior incident and the current charges were compelling, and this evidence played a critical role in confirming the defendant’s involvement in the joint enterprise. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence was admissible.

The court ordered that the evidence of the similar fact be admitted in the trial, allowing the jury to consider it in determining the defendant’s guilt. The decision underscored the importance of carefully weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect in cases involving similar fact evidence, especially where joint criminal enterprises are alleged.

Orders