R v Cozzi - [1999] SASC 174

R V COZZI
[1999] SASC 174

Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Bleby and Martin JJ

DOYLE CJ. In my opinion the appeal should be allowed and a retrial ordered. I agree with the reasons given by Martin J. There is nothing that I wish to add to those reasons.
BLEBY J. I agree with the orders proposed by Martin J and with the reasons that he gives. I have nothing to add to those reasons.
MARTIN J. The appellant was jointly charged with Salvatore Menendez with the murder of Geoffrey Neil Plew. Menendez pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but not guilty to murder. The Crown declined to accept the plea in satisfaction of the Information. In a joint trial, Menendez was convicted by a jury of murder. The appellant was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. She appeals against her conviction on the ground that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence submitting that the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory (M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439).
The deceased was last seen alive during the evening of Thursday, 31 July 1997 at his home. Late on Monday, 4 August, 1997 a concerned neighbour raised the alarm and police attended in the early hours of Tuesday, 5 August 1997. They forced their way into the deceased’s home and found him lying on the kitchen floor. He had been dead for some time and had died from a massive blood loss caused by a stab wound to the neck which cut the left internal jugular vein. Two other stab wounds to the neck had caused severe injuries. He had been repeatedly beaten about the head and face with sufficient force to cause fractures to his cheekbones, eye sockets and nose as well as a loosening of his jaw. His left ear lobe was hanging loosely. The severity of the head injuries indicated the use of more force than would be expected from punches. Footprints on his skull suggested his head had been stomped on which would account for the head injuries. He had also been beaten about the body resulting in fractures to three ribs and other bruising and abrasions. His legs were taped together and there were no defence injuries.
A pathologist gave evidence that the fatal wound would have caused the deceased to lose consciousness and rapidly bleed to death within a few minutes. The head and other injuries would also have caused the deceased to lose consciousness. While they were serious, those other injuries posed no direct or immediate threat to life.
The pathologist was unable to determine the order in which the injuries had been inflicted, but the presence of substantial bruising on both sides of the head suggested to him that the head injuries were likely to have been sustained prior to the stab wounds to the throat.
It was the Crown case that Menendez beat…

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 Cozzi

Details

AGLC: R v Cozzi [1999] SASC 174
Case: [1999] SASC 174
Decision Date: 13 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cozzi involved an appeal against a conviction for manslaughter. The appellant, Claudia Cozzi, was jointly charged with Salvatore Menendez for the murder of Geoffrey Neil Plew. Menendez pleaded guilty to manslaughter but denied murder, while Cozzi was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The court was required to decide whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and if the verdict of guilty of manslaughter was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court considered the evidence presented, including the testimony of Cozzi and the Crown's evidence, and assessed the adequacy of the directions given to the jury regarding the legal requirements of manslaughter. The court concluded that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the inadequate directions on the issue of causation, which led to a real possibility that the jury convicted on a different basis than intended. The verdict was set aside, and the appellant was remanded for a further trial on the charge of manslaughter. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant had admitted to being guilty of assisting an offender, and the verdict of assisting the offender could be substituted in lieu of a retrial on the charge of manslaughter.

Orders