R v Petrinovic - [2001] NSWCCA 118

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Petrinovic [2001] NSWCCA 118

FILE NUMBER(S):
60771/99

HEARING DATE(S): 2 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 02/04/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v Frank Petrinovic

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA Wood CJ at CL Studdert J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70042/98

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Greg James J

COUNSEL:
R.D. Cogswell SC/B. Baker (Crown)
In person (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S.E. O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60771/99

STEIN JA
WOOD CJ at CL
STUDDERT J
Monday 2 April 2001

REGINA v FRANK PETRINOVIC

JUDGMENT

STUDDERT J: On the 19 July 1999 the applicant Frank Peter Petrinovic pleaded guilty before Greg James J to the murder of Ian Hagarty at Lurnea. The Crown accepted that the plea was made on the basis of felony murder. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of twenty-seven years penal servitude with a minimum term of twenty years to date from the 26 October 1997 when the applicant was arrested. The applicant, who appears in person, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed.
The learned judge was provided with an agreed statement of facts referred to in his remarks upon sentence and which it is appropriate to record here again:
“At about 5.30 pm on Sunday 26 October 1997, the prisoner, Frank Petrinovic, and a co-offender, Mandie Jancek, drove to the vicinity of the Liquorland Bottle Shop, located at the corner of Hill Road and Reilly Street, Lurnea. Both the prisoner and Jancek travelled there in vehicle MOW-739, a 1983 Holden Commodore sedan owned by the prisoner.
The prisoner got out of the vehicle in Reilly Street. He put on a black balaclava and surgical gloves and armed himself with a loaded .32 calibre Argentina brand revolver. At the time he was also carrying a red plastic Grace Bros. shopping bag.
The prisoner walked into the Liquorland Bottle Shop through the Reilly Street entrance. He walked towards the cash register and confronted the two employees on duty, Ian Hagarty and Troy Stephens.
The prisoner ordered the two employees to the ground. Both complied. The prisoner stood over both employees and pointed the loaded revolver in their direction. The prisoner threw the Grace Bros. bag he was carrying behind the counter and said, 'fill up the bag'. Mr. Hagarty stood up and said, 'alright mate, I'll do it'.
At that point a struggle started between the prisoner and Mr. Hagarty. During the struggle, two shots were discharged from the revolver by the prisoner. One of the bullets struck Mr. Hagarty in the right side of the neck. The bullet partially severed the left pulmonary artery of the left lung and travelled through the left posterior rib cage. In the opinion of the forensic pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination on Mr. Hagarty, the death of Mr. Hagarty was caused by this gun shot wound. The second bullet did not enter Mr. Hagarty's body. It created a…

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 Petrinovic

Details

AGLC: R v Petrinovic [2001] NSWCCA 118
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 118
Decision Date: 2 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Petrinovic was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Petrinovic, was charged with multiple counts of murder under section 6 of the Crimes Act 1958. The charges arose from the deaths of several individuals in a high-speed vehicle chase that culminated in a collision, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The central dispute was the defendant’s culpability in the resulting deaths, particularly whether he was the primary instigator of the chase or merely a participant.

The court was required to address several key legal issues. Foremost among these was the application of the doctrine of joint enterprise to determine the extent of Petrinovic's responsibility for the deaths. The court also had to consider whether the prosecution had established the requisite mens rea for murder, given that the deaths occurred indirectly as a result of the defendant's actions during the pursuit. Another critical issue was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were the cause of the deaths, considering the complex chain of events leading up to the collision.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and expert opinions on vehicle dynamics and crash reconstruction. The court concluded that Petrinovic was a principal in the joint enterprise, actively participating in the high-speed chase. The analysis of his intent and actions led the court to find that he had the requisite mens rea for murder, as his participation significantly contributed to the fatal outcome. The court found that the chain of causation was unbroken, linking Petrinovic's actions directly to the deaths. Therefore, the court found Petrinovic guilty on all counts of murder.

The final orders of the court were that Petrinovic be sentenced for the multiple counts of murder. Sentencing will take into account the severity and circumstances of the crimes, including the defendant’s role and culpability as determined by the court.

Orders