R v Efandis (Ruling no 2) - [2008] VSC 274

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1594 of 2006

THE QUEEN

VASILIKI EFANDIS

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15-18, 21 July 2008
DATE OF RULING:	22 July 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Efandis (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 274

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Admissibility of evidence – Alleged motive of financial gain to accused – Admissibility of evidence why deceased revoked will in favour of daughter – Admissibility of evidence of relationship with daughter – Admissibility of unrecorded admission – Whether exceptional circumstances under s 464H(2) of Crimes Act 1958.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Champion SC	Stuart Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Thomson	Balmer & Associates Pty

HIS HONOUR:

The accused is charged with the murder of George Marcetta at Bellfield on 9 September 2004, and also with intentionally and without lawful excuse damaging by fire a house owned by herself and Marcetta at Bellfield. I have been asked to rule as to the admissibility of the whole or parts of the evidence of the following witnesses: Alexander McCormack; Ioanna Marcetta; Anathasia Marcetta; Tomaslav Dragojevic; and Detective Senior Constable Anthony White. In the course of submissions issues were raised also as to the admissibility of the evidence of Anthony Wright, Bin Bao Lawrence Dong and Zoran Obradovic. However those issues were resolved in the course of discussion with counsel.

Evidence of Alexander McCormack

Mr Marcetta had had a relationship with the accused for approximately two years before his death. It is part of the Crown case that, over that period, the accused involved herself significantly in the personal and business life of Marcetta, to the extent where she acquired either ownership of or control over his property and financial affairs. In particular, she became the sole registered proprietor of the property at Bellfield to which, on the Crown case, Marcetta had made a substantial financial contribution. In addition, she became a director of his painting business, and was the joint owner with him of some bank accounts.

The Crown intends to adduce evidence as to the circumstances in which Mr Marcetta revoked his will in July 2003. Previously, on 14 August 2002, Mr Marcetta had executed a will, by which he had left the whole of his residuary estate to his daughter. On 15 July 2003 he consulted his solicitor, Mr Alexander McCormack, who conducted practice in Dandenong. On Mr Marcetta’s instructions, Mr McCormack prepared a deed of revocation of the will, which was executed by Mr Marcetta. Thus Mr Marcetta became intestate. The Crown case is that that intestacy should be considered by the jury in the context of the acquisition by the accused of the sole proprietorship of the house property at Bellfield, and her directorship in the painting business. The Crown case is that the accused thus acquired a strong position to make a…

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 Efandis (Ruling no 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Efandis (Ruling no 2) [2008] VSC 274
Case: [2008] VSC 274
Decision Date: 22 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Efandis, which was heard in the Supreme Court, involved the accused, Efandis, facing a charge of murder. The central issue in the trial was the admissibility of various pieces of evidence that the prosecution sought to present, including evidence of the accused's motive of financial gain, details of the deceased's revocation of their will in favour of their daughter, and evidence of the relationship between the deceased and their daughter. Additionally, the prosecution sought to introduce an unrecorded admission made by the accused. The court had to determine whether these pieces of evidence met the criteria for admissibility under section 464H(2) of the Crimes Act 1958, particularly considering the concept of exceptional circumstances.

The legal issues at the heart of the case centred on the admissibility of evidence that the prosecution wished to present. The court had to consider whether evidence of the accused's motive of financial gain was relevant and admissible under the law. Furthermore, the court needed to decide on the relevance and admissibility of evidence pertaining to the deceased's revocation of their will and their relationship with their daughter. The court also had to examine whether an unrecorded admission made by the accused could be admitted into evidence under the exceptional circumstances outlined in section 464H(2) of the Crimes Act 1958.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined each piece of evidence presented by the prosecution. The court determined that evidence of the accused's motive of financial gain was relevant and admissible as it could provide insight into the accused's potential reasons for committing the murder. Regarding the deceased's revocation of their will and their relationship with their daughter, the court found that this evidence was also relevant and admissible, as it could potentially explain the circumstances surrounding the will's revocation and provide context for the events leading up to the murder. Finally, the court held that the unrecorded admission made by the accused could be admitted into evidence, as it met the criteria for exceptional circumstances under section 464H(2) of the Crimes Act 1958. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficiently reliable and that its admission was necessary for a fair trial.

In conclusion, the court ruled that all the pieces of evidence sought to be presented by the prosecution were admissible. The evidence of the accused's motive of financial gain, the deceased's revocation of their will in favour of their daughter, and the relationship between the deceased and their daughter were all deemed relevant and admissible. Additionally, the unrecorded admission made by the accused was found to be admissible under the exceptional circumstances outlined in section 464H(2) of the Crimes Act 1958. The court's decision allowed for a comprehensive examination of the evidence in the case, which would ultimately contribute to a fair and just trial for the accused.

Orders