R v Ellis - [2008] VSC 372

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1566 of 2007

THE QUEEN

DARREN JOHN ELLIS

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne and Ballarat
DATE OF HEARING:	2,3,5,6,10, 11,13 – 25 June 2008, 16 July 2008 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 September 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ellis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 372

---

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial case – Prisoner convicted of stabbing and shooting his 19 year old de facto – Attempt to conceal body in lake – Prisoner continues to deny offence – Imprisoned for 21 years with a non-parole period of 17 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A. Steven	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Chadwick	Mike Wardell Barrister and Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

Darren John Ellis, on 25 June 2008 you were found guilty of the murder of Naomi Marree Bernaldo on or about 19 September 2006.

The trial at which you were convicted lasted nine days. There had been three attempts to complete your trial in Ballarat, but each of the three juries empanelled had to be discharged without verdict. None of the delays were as a result of what was done by you or your legal advisers. It did increase the pressure on you. It caused the trial to be transferred from Ballarat to Melbourne, which made it more difficult for your family to support you in your trial.

After the trial, your father wrote to me and I have placed the letter on the Court file. There is nothing I can do about the matters he raised in that letter, but you should understand that you have his complete support.

Ms Bernaldo’s body was found in St George’s Lake, Creswick on Thursday 2 November 2006. At the time of her death, she was 19, having been born on 17 July 1987.

When her body was found, it was contained within a chicken wire “cage”. The cage was weighted down with a foundry weight and some rocks. It was held together with cable ties. It is clear that her body was never meant to be found.

You have always denied any involvement in Ms Bernaldo’s death and you continue to do so. That makes the plea somewhat more complicated than it would otherwise be because it means that there is no explanation of the circumstances under which she met her death.

It also follows that you cannot be said to be remorseful, but I accept that you do regret the fact that Ms Bernaldo has been murdered.

You and Ms Bernaldo had been living together since the early part of 2006. Your relationship commenced in Ballarat and you later moved to live in a rented house at 100 Clunes Road, Creswick in about March 2006.

Although the cause of Ms Bernaldo’s death was said by the pathologist Professor Ranson to be stab wounds to the chest and a gunshot to the head, there is…

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 Ellis

Details

AGLC: R v Ellis [2008] VSC 372
Case: [2008] VSC 372
Decision Date: 23 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Ellis was heard in a superior court where the defendant, Ellis, was charged with the murder of his 19-year-old de facto partner. The prosecution presented a circumstantial case against Ellis, alleging that he stabbed and shot the victim, and then attempted to conceal the body in a lake. Despite the compelling evidence, Ellis maintained his innocence throughout the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had established the case against Ellis beyond reasonable doubt.

The central legal issue for the court was to assess the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court had to determine if the chain of events, including the defendant's actions post-offence, sufficiently established Ellis's guilt. The court also needed to consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence, and whether it was possible to infer Ellis's guilt based on the circumstances alone. The absence of direct evidence, such as eyewitness accounts or a confession, meant the court had to rely heavily on the circumstantial evidence and the inferences that could be drawn from it.

The court, after careful consideration, found that the circumstantial evidence, while not direct, formed a coherent and compelling narrative that pointed to Ellis's guilt. The court found that the timeline of events, the defendant's actions after the offence, and the lack of any credible alibi were sufficient to establish Ellis's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected Ellis's continued denial and imposed a sentence of 21 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. The court's decision was based on the weight of the evidence and the conclusion that the prosecution had met the required standard of proof.

Orders