Legal Research
Cases
R v Chatzidimitriou

R v Chatzidimitriou

Case [2000] VSCA 91 25 May 2000

Criminal Liability

Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No.145 of 1999

THE QUEEN

EMMANUEL CHATZIDIMITRIOU

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS and CALLAWAY, JJ.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 February 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 May 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 91

---

Criminal law – Murder – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Charge unexceptionable – Jury question about meaning of standard – Dictionary made available without comment – Whether verdict assailable – Whether sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment, with minimum of 17 years, manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G.R. Flatman, Q.C., D.P.P. with Mr. T. Gyorffy	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. with Mr. A.J. Palmer	Lethbridges

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

I agree with Cummins, A.J.A. that these two applications should be dismissed, and I agree with what his Honour has said about them. However, I wish to say something for myself about the added ground 2 of the application for leave to appeal against conviction, which turns on the jury’s having been provided with a dictionary.

There is no need for me to set out the facts which are relevant to ground 2; they are within fairly small compass and are to be found in the judgment of Cummins, A.J.A. But I note the following. First, no exception was taken below to the judge’s charge - nor could it have been. During his charge, the judge made a number of references to the need for proof “beyond reasonable doubt” and applicant’s counsel referred us to eleven examples. When the jury retired, they must have been very familiar with the expression.

Next, on the second day of their deliberations the jury asked the judge to define “doubt”, “reasonable doubt” and “beyond reasonable doubt”. The trial judge responded as described by Cummins, A.J.A. in paragraph [34] and applicant’s counsel makes no complaint with respect to what was said then: as he put it, “what was said by the learned trial judge is in accordance with the law”. In the course of this supplemental direction, the judge said of doubt, reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt -

“ … those are very plain English words and ought to be interpreted by the jury to mean exactly what they say, namely beyond reasonable doubt. It is impossible to put another definition on them."

After attempting some elaboration, the judge concluded by saying “that it does not assist juries to try to interpret those words any more than by what I have said to you”. No issue is taken thus far.

After giving a further direction on corroboration, there was then some discussion in the presence of the jury (and again it is set out in paragraph [34]). It was in the course of that subsequent discussion that the judge apparently turned to the jury and gave them a further direction about proof beyond reasonable doubt, saying:

"I have told you previously that if you consider this question…

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 Chatzidimitriou

Details

AGLC: R v Chatzidimitriou [2000] VSCA 91
Case: [2000] VSCA 91
Decision Date: 25 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Chatzidimitriou, the defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was assailable due to the provision of a dictionary without comment when the jury asked for clarification on the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt." The defendant argued that the trial judge's decision to provide the dictionary without comment was prejudicial and led to an improper jury direction.

The court examined whether the jury's understanding of the standard of proof was influenced by the dictionary provided. The court held that the provision of the dictionary without comment did not constitute an error that would render the verdict assailable. The court reasoned that the dictionary was merely a tool to assist the jury in understanding the term, and there was no evidence to suggest that the jury's comprehension was adversely affected. The court also noted that the trial judge's direction on the standard of proof was clear and comprehensive, and the dictionary was simply an additional resource.

Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crime of murder, taking into account the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant interference.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence. The court held that the trial judge's provision of the dictionary without comment did not constitute an error, and the jury's verdict was not assailable. The sentence imposed was deemed to be appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Orders