Legal Research
Cases
R v Dupas

R v Dupas

Case [2001] VSCA 109 3 August 2001

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 221 of 2000
No. 279 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
PETER NORRIS DUPAS

---

JUDGES:	Winneke, P., Phillips and Batt, JJ.A,
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 June 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 August 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 109

---

Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial Case – Extent to which trial judge required to give directions relating to consciousness of guilt discussed.

Criminal law – Admissibility of unrecorded admissions – Applicability of s.464H of Crimes Act 1958 – Whether judge’s discretion pursuant to s.464H(2) properly exercised.

Sentence – Life sentence imposed – Discretion exercised not to fix a non-parole period – Whether discretion justified in circumstances of the case.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. and Ms. K. Judd	Ms. Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. M.J. Croucher	Leanne Warren & Associates

WINNEKE, P.:

On the evening of the 19 April 1999 the body of Nicole Patterson (hereinafter called “the deceased”) was discovered by a friend in the front room of the deceased’s premises at 21 Harper Street, Northcote. Her friend had called upon the deceased to fulfil a dinner engagement which had been previously arranged. Although the friend could hear music, apparently coming from the radio inside the closed door of the house, she was unable to attract attention by knocking. She was, however, able to gain entry through the front door which was unlocked. When she did so, she saw the body of the deceased lying on the floor of the loungeroom at the front of the house. The friend alerted the police who arrived shortly thereafter.

The deceased had been brutally murdered by stabbing. It was later revealed that she had received some 27 stab wounds to her chest and back. There were on her hands and lower arms many “defensive wounds” demonstrating a futile attempt to ward off the killer. Her skirt had been removed and was found in the adjacent bedroom. It had been cut, apparently with a knife. The underwear of the deceased had been pulled down over her ankles, but tests conducted to see whether she had been sexually penetrated, were inconclusive. The deceased’s body had been mutilated by her assailant by the severing of each of her breasts from the torso. Randomly distributed over parts of the deceased’s body were small pieces of yellow PVC tape. The police found heavy bloodstaining on the floor of the carpet of the loungeroom where the deceased was found, the pattern of the bloodstains indicating that she had been lying on her front before being rolled over to the position where she was found, namely lying on her back. Bloodstains were also found on the bed and sheeting in the adjacent bedroom, and on the handles of the door and drawer knobs in that bedroom. In short, it appeared that the deceased had been slain following a vicious and persistent attack which she had been…

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 Dupas

Details

AGLC: R v Dupas [2001] VSCA 109
Case: [2001] VSCA 109
Decision Date: 3 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dupas involved the appellant, who was convicted of the murder of a man at his residence in Melbourne. The appeal centred on three main issues: the adequacy of the trial judge's directions concerning the concept of consciousness of guilt, the admissibility of an unrecorded admission made by the appellant, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, specifically the decision not to set a non-parole period. The matters were argued before the High Court of Australia.

The first legal issue was whether the trial judge should have provided more specific directions to the jury regarding the concept of consciousness of guilt. The appellant argued that the judge's directions were insufficient and that this led to an unfair trial. The second issue revolved around the admissibility of an unrecorded admission made by the appellant, and whether the judge's discretion under section 464H of the Crimes Act 1958 was correctly exercised. The third issue was whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in imposing a life sentence without setting a non-parole period.

The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury about consciousness of guilt were adequate and did not prejudice the appellant. The judges found that the judge had provided sufficient guidance for the jury to consider the evidence in the context of consciousness of guilt. Regarding the admissibility of the unrecorded admission, the court found that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion under section 464H, and that the admission was relevant and admissible. Lastly, the court upheld the decision not to set a non-parole period, finding that the trial judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the crime and the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and exercised his discretion appropriately in all respects. The conviction and sentence were upheld, with no non-parole period set.

Orders