R v Meola - [1999] NSWCCA 388

CITATION: Regina v Vito MEOLA [1999] NSWCCA 388 revised - 06/12/99

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60149/99

HEARING DATE(S): 23/11/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 November 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Vito Meola

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Hulme J at 22; Sperling J at 23

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0711

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Luland DCJ

COUNSEL: T.L. Buddin SC - Crown
L.M. McSpedden/T. Hudson - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Christopher Lee & Associates

CATCHWORDS:

CASES CITED:
R v CRH, unreported, CCA, 18/12/96
R v M (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439

DECISION: Appeal against conviction allowed; conviction and sentence consequent upon it quashed; and judgment of acquittal on count 1 of indictment

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60149/99
SULLY J
HULME J
SPERLING J
23 November 1999

REGINA v Vito MEOLA
JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: On 18 January of this year the appellant, Mr Vito Meola, was presented for trial in the District Court at Sydney and before his Honour Luland DCJ of Queens Counsel. 2 He was so presented upon an indictment containing three counts. Each count charged against the appellant an act of sexual impropriety of one kind or another with a common complainant who was a relative of the appellant. 3 The dating of the charges was in some respects changed as the trial progressed, and with a consequence of which it will be necessary to say presently something more. 4 The jury acquitted the appellant on counts 2 and 3 but convicted him on count 1. 5 Consequent upon that conviction sentence was not passed upon him, but was deferred upon terms of which it is not necessary to say anything detailed for present purposes. 6 The learned sentencing Judge was obviously concerned by the outcome. His Honour described as follows that concern:

"My reaction to the verdicts was that they are inconsistent in that I could see no explicable reason for the difference. I felt that what happened may have been a compromise by the jury. In light of my concern about the verdict of guilty I believe it to be a fit case for appeal and have granted a certificate accordingly."

7 Such an expression of opinion is, of course, not determinative of the present appeal. 8 It is the case, however, that the learned trial Judge is an experienced Judge of trial in criminal cases; and it is a matter of some concern, to put the point no higher, that his Honour, acquainted as he was in a way which this Court cannot replicate with the atmosphere and conduct of the trial, felt such discomfort about the outcome as to express himself as his Honour did; and as to give, on his Honour's own motion, a certificate that the matter was one fit for appeal. 9 The Crown case on each count depended upon the evidence of the complainant. She gave evidence on oath, as did the appellant. There was some…

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 Meola

Details

AGLC: R v Meola [1999] NSWCCA 388
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 388
Decision Date: 23 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales heard an appeal by Vito Meola against his conviction on count 1 of an indictment in the District Court at Sydney, presided over by Luland DCJ. Meola was charged with three counts of sexual impropriety with a relative, the complainant. The jury acquitted him on counts 2 and 3 but convicted him on count 1, leading to the deferral of his sentencing. The trial judge expressed concern over the inconsistent verdicts and certified the case fit for appeal. The appeal hinged on the safety of Meola's conviction on count 1, the applicability of the legal doctrine of doli incapax, and the adequacy of the evidence presented by the Crown.

The primary legal issues were whether Meola's conviction on count 1 was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and if the doctrine of doli incapax applied to bar his conviction. The High Court of Australia had previously established the principles governing the safety of a conviction and the application of doli incapax. The Court had to determine if the acquittal on counts 2 and 3 implied that the jury found the complainant's evidence unacceptable, and if so, whether this rendered the conviction on count 1 similarly flawed. Additionally, the Court had to assess if the Crown had met its burden of proving, to the criminal standard, that Meola had the requisite capacity for criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and entered a judgment of acquittal on count 1. Sully J found that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the acquittal on counts 2 and 3 indicated that the jury did not believe the complainant's evidence. Given the inconsistency in the verdicts, Sully J concluded that the conviction on count 1 could not be sustained. Furthermore, the Court found that the Crown had not proven Meola's capacity to be criminally liable under the doctrine of doli incapax, as the evidence was insufficient to establish this beyond reasonable doubt. Both Hulme J and Sperling J agreed with the proposed orders and the reasoning provided by Sully J, with Sperling J emphasizing the applicability of the doli incapax doctrine in this case.

The final orders of the Court were to allow the appeal against conviction, quash the conviction and the consequent sentence, and enter a judgment of acquittal on count 1 of the indictment. This decision effectively exonerated Meola from the charges, setting a precedent regarding the application of the doctrine of doli incapax in similar cases.

Orders