R v Filippou - [2011] NSWSC 1379

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Filippou [2011] NSWSC 1379
Hearing dates: 10/10/2011 - 14/10/2011
Decision date: 18 November 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Mathews AJ
Decision:
Guilty of murder in relation to both charges

Catchwords: MURDER - plea of guilty of manslaughter - provocation - whether loss of self-control - firearm -Judge alone trial
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act (NSW) 1900
Cases Cited: Green v R [1997] 191 CLR 334
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58
Moffa v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 601
R v R (1981) 28 SASR 321
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Christopher Angelo Filippou (Accused)
Representation: P Barnett SC (Crown)
P Rosser QC / N Moir (Accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
John Anthony Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2010/208897
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 10 October 2011 the accused, Christopher Angelo Filippou, was charged by way of indictment with the following two charges:

First , that on 27 June 2010 at Mayfield he murdered Samuel Willis.

Second , that on the same day, 27 June 2010 at Mayfield he murdered Luke Willis.

In relation to both charges the accused pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept this plea and the matter went to trial on the issue of murder. The sole issue raised by the defence related to provocation.

In accordance with an order previously made on 29 September 2011 a jury had been dispensed with and the trial proceeded by myself alone.

Considerable efficiencies were gained through the trial being heard by Judge alone, largely because of close co-operation between counsel as to the presentation of evidence. Only those witnesses who were required for cross-examination gave evidence orally; and even in those cases, their evidence in chief often consisted of confirming the accuracy of their written statements. As a result, there was a considerable amount of documentary evidence in the trial, consisting of the statements of all 47 witnesses, in addition to other exhibits. However, only twelve of the Crown witnesses were called to give oral evidence. As a result, the hearing of the trial was completed within a much shorter time than was originally anticipated.

At the close of the hearing I reserved my judgment as to whether the accused was guilty of murder, as charged, in relation to each of the two counts in the indictment.

Factual background

The two victims, Luke and Samuel Willis, were brothers. They were aged respectively 28 and 22 at the time of their deaths. Their parents separated in 1995. Their father, William Willis, purchased a house at 12 Y Street Mayfield in about 2000 and the two victims lived there from time to time over the next ten years. In early 2009 the accused purchased a house at 7 Z Street Mayfield. This was situated directly behind the Willis' home, so that they shared a back fence. Mayfield is a suburb of Newcastle.

Mr William Willis used to…

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 Filippou

Details

AGLC: R v Filippou [2011] NSWSC 1379
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1379
Decision Date: 18 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Filippou was heard before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Filippou, entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter, specifically arguing that the killing of the victim was due to provocation, resulting in a loss of self-control. The victim was shot with a firearm, leading to a judge-alone trial to determine the appropriate sentence. The court had to assess the factual circumstances surrounding the incident to decide whether the defendant's plea of manslaughter due to provocation was valid.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if the defendant had indeed lost self-control to the extent that manslaughter, rather than murder, was the appropriate charge. This involved examining whether the provocation was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and whether the defendant's actions were a direct result of such loss of control. The court also had to consider the nature of the weapon used and its potential to cause harm, alongside the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident.

The court found that the defendant's plea of manslaughter due to provocation was valid, as the evidence presented indicated that the defendant had lost self-control in response to the provocation. The court considered the circumstances leading up to the shooting, including the defendant's emotional state and the nature of the provocation. The weapon used and the immediate circumstances of the shooting were also taken into account. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were a direct result of the loss of self-control caused by the provocation, leading to a conviction of manslaughter rather than murder. The sentencing was left to be determined by the court.

Orders