Legal Research
Cases
R v Fantakis

R v Fantakis

Case [2018] NSWSC 1815 26 February 2018

Admissibility of Evidence

Mental Illness

Jury Capacity

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fantakis [2018] NSWSC 1815
Hearing dates: 22 February 2018
Date of orders: 26 February 2018
Decision date: 26 February 2018
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
Application to exclude evidence of admissions made by the accused is refused

Catchwords: CRIME – accused charged with murder – objection taken to admissibility of admissions made by accused in diary notes and video recordings – reliability of admissions – mental illness – capacity of jury to determine reliability of admissions that may be delusional - s 90 Evidence Act – question of unfair prejudice
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: DAO v R [2011] NSWCCA 63; 81 NSWLR 568
Em v The Queen [2007] HCA 46; 232 CLR 67
Imm v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297
Pfennig v The Queen [1995] HCA 7; 182 CLR 461
Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100
R v Fantakis; R v Woods [2017] NSWSC 1840
R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306; 201 A Crim R 451
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; 66 NSWLR 228
R v Swaffield; Pavic v R [1998] HCA 1; (1998) 192 CLR 159
R v Woods; R v Cheong [2018] NSWSC 123
R v XY [2013] NSWCCA 121
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
Accused - Elefterios [Terry] FANTAKIS
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Lungo as Crown Prosecutor
Mr I Todd for the accused Fantakis
Solicitors:
The Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Ms S Orya for the accused Fantakis

File Number(s): 2013/297834 Elefterios [Terry] FANTAKIS
Publication restriction: Restricted to the parties pending verdict or further order of the Court (whichever comes first).25/5/2018 Date of Verdicts.

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The accused faces trial charged with the murder of Elisha Karmas on 11 August 2011, at Punchbowl in this State. He was arraigned before this Court on 6 May 2017 and entered a plea of not guilty. A jury is to be empanelled on 26 February 2018 and it is expected that the trial will commence soon after.
The Court heard evidence and submissions on the voir dire on 22 February 2018, directed to the admissibility of video and documentary evidence in which the accused is alleged to have made admissions to murdering Mr Karmas and disposing of his body. The accused objects to the evidence being placed before the jury, arguing that the purported admissions are unlikely to be reliable, and should be excluded pursuant to ss 90 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1900 (NSW).
The background facts as alleged by the Crown have been earlier set out, in R v Fantakis; R v Woods [2017] NSWSC 1840, and R v Woods; R v Cheong [2018] NSWSC 123.

The Disputed Evidence

Tendered to the Court on the voir dire is a copy of the Crown Case Statement, Ex. VD A.2, and the transcripts of two video recordings, Ex. VD B.…

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 Fantakis

Details

AGLC: R v Fantakis [2018] NSWSC 1815
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1815
Decision Date: 26 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fantakis, the accused was charged with the murder of his wife, Christina Fantakis. The central issue in the trial was the admissibility of various diary entries and video recordings that the accused had made, in which he made admissions relevant to the crime. The trial judge had to decide whether these materials were reliable and whether the jury could properly assess their credibility, particularly given the accused's mental health status and the potential for delusional content. The court also had to consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect under s 90 of the Evidence Act.

The legal issues before the court included whether the diary entries and video recordings were relevant and reliable admissions that could be considered by the jury, and whether the accused's mental illness affected the jury's capacity to determine the reliability of the admissions. Additionally, the court needed to balance the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effect under s 90 of the Evidence Act. The accused's legal team argued that the diary entries and video recordings were unreliable due to his mental health issues, while the prosecution contended that the materials were admissible and provided valuable insights into the accused's state of mind.

The court found that the diary entries and video recordings were indeed relevant and could be considered by the jury. It determined that the accused's mental illness did not render the admissions unreliable, as the jury was capable of assessing the reliability of the evidence and distinguishing between delusional content and factual admissions. The court held that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect, and thus it was admissible under s 90 of the Evidence Act. The diary entries and video recordings were therefore admitted as evidence in the trial.

The court ordered that the diary entries and video recordings be admitted as evidence in the trial. The trial proceeded with this evidence considered by the jury, ultimately leading to the accused's conviction for the murder of Christina Fantakis.

Orders