Legal Research
Cases
R v Imadonmwonyi

R v Imadonmwonyi

Case [2004] VSC 361 19 October 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1420 of 2003

THE QUEEN

CHARLES IMADONMWONYI

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3-7, 10-12, 14, 17-20, 24-28, 31 May, 1 June 2004
DATE OF RULINGS:	4, 27 May 2004
DATE OF REASONS:	19 October 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Charles Imadonmwonyi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 361

---

Criminal Law – Rulings – Murder and other charges – Application to have judicial discretion used to exclude a videotape of the accused using urine to remove blood from his face and hands – Application to preclude prosecution leaving to the jury the disposal of a knife as post-offence conduct – Assessment of sufficiency of evidence of self-defence to warrant it being left to the jury

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Gamble	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms C. Randazzo S.C.	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

These are my reasons for three rulings given before or during the trial for murder and other offences of Charles Imadonmwonyi (“the accused”). Arising out of events which occurred on the roadway of Holland Court in Flemington shortly before midnight on 6 January 2002, the accused was charged with the murder of Hakan Ulu and with having intentionally, and in the alternative, recklessly, caused serious injury to Erhan Ulu. Hakan Ulu died of stab wounds. Erhan Ulu was seriously injured from stab wounds.

Before the trial commenced, an application was made by Ms Randazzo of Senior Counsel who appeared for the accused to have me exercise my discretion to exclude a videotape which showed certain behaviour of the accused at the offices of the Homicide Squad around 7 a.m. on 7 January 2002. That behaviour included his urinating into the paper coverall that he was wearing, and onto the floor, and then using the urine to cleanse his face and hands of blood. Ms Randazzo argued that the tape was improperly and unfairly obtained, that not to exclude it would be unfair to the accused, that what it showed was irrelevant, alternatively, that the probative value of showing the tape was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. I declined to rule that the videotape was inadmissible.

Before the trial commenced and again at the end of the evidence, Ms Randazzo applied to me to rule that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution being permitted to submit to the jury that certain “post-offence” conduct should be used as evidence of guilt. I ruled that there was. At the end of the evidence, Ms Randazzo applied to me to rule that there was sufficient evidence to warrant my instructing the jury as to self-defence. I ruled that there was not.

The trial was a relatively long one for a number of reasons. One reason was that there were several witnesses to events that formed part of a pursuit of the accused after the…

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 Imadonmwonyi

Details

AGLC: R v Imadonmwonyi [2004] VSC 361
Case: [2004] VSC 361
Decision Date: 19 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Imadonmwonyi involved the defendant, Imadonmwonyi, who was charged with murder and other related offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence, including a videotape of the defendant using urine to remove blood from his face and hands, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a self-defence claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the videotape of the defendant's actions should be excluded due to the exercise of judicial discretion, whether the disposal of a knife post-offence should be left to the jury as a matter of the prosecution's case, and whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant leaving the self-defence claim to the jury. The court had to carefully consider the relevance and probative value of the evidence in question, as well as the potential for prejudice and the principles of fairness in criminal proceedings.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. In relation to the videotape, the court found that it was relevant and should not be excluded as it demonstrated the defendant's attempt to conceal evidence of the crime. The court also determined that the disposal of the knife should be left to the jury as it could be seen as an act of preparation or an attempt to conceal evidence. Regarding the self-defence claim, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to warrant leaving the matter to the jury, as the evidence supported the possibility that the defendant acted in self-defence. The court concluded that the evidence, when considered as a whole, was sufficient to allow the jury to make a decision on the self-defence issue.

The final orders of the court included the admission of the videotape and the disposal of the knife as evidence, and the leaving of the self-defence claim to the jury. The court's decision balanced the interests of fairness and the proper administration of justice with the need to ensure that all relevant evidence was considered in the determination of the case.

Orders