Legal Research
Cases
R v Plevac

R v Plevac

Case [1999] NSWCCA 351 28 October 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Plevac [1999] NSWCCA 351

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60524/96

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 28 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Josef Plevac

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; James J at 58; Dowd J at 59

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70041/90

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McInerney J

COUNSEL: C.K. Maxwell QC (Crown)
A.J. Bellanto QC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
Patricia White & Associates (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law And Procedure - Murder - Circumstance - Motive - Relationship Evidence Concerning Victim And Appellant - Content Of Charge To Jury - New Evidence - Psychiatrist's Opinion Of Fear Of Fire - Victim Killed By Incineration - Letter Claimed To Be Written By Deceased - Deliberately Withheld On Advice Of Senior Counsel - Content Of Letter Does Not Indicate Miscarriage In Any Event

CASES CITED:
Penney v The Queen 1998 72 ALJR 1316
R v Murphy 1985 4 NSWLR 42
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) 1984 153 CLR 521
R v Kotzmann (1999) VSCA 27

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60524/96

GROVE J
JAMES J
DOWD J

Thursday 28 October 1999

REGINA v JOSEF PLEVAC

JUDGMENT
1    GROVE J : This is an appeal by Josef Plevac against the conviction for the murder of his wife Dana Plevac following a trial before McInerney J and a jury. Those proceedings were a retrial following orders made in this court on 5 October 1995.
2    The appellant and his wife lived apart. He had been residing in the former matrimonial home at Bossley Park but this was destroyed by fire in February 1989. The victim (who was the appellant's second wife) resided with their daughter Natalie on the fourteenth level of an apartment building in Parramatta. Natalie was at the time of her mother's death aged five.
3    The deceased had been employed as a paymistress and she had commenced an association with a work colleague, Timothy Sullivan. Mr Sullivan had gone to Western Australia seeking employment and a residence. Dana Plevac joined him in Western Australia for a time but returned to Sydney, although it would appear that this return may have been intended to be temporary.
4    There was in existence a restraining order prohibiting the appellant amongst other things from approaching the residence of the deceased. He claimed that he consented to that order to allay an unfounded apprehension of his wife that he might take Natalie to the Czech Republic where he had family including his mother.
5    On the morning of 22 September 1989 Dana and Natalie Plevac emerged from their apartment and were making their way towards the lift in order to proceed to work and to school respectively. An assailant whose head and face were covered by a balaclava-like disguise, doused the victim in what was later identified as petrol and ignited her. Natalie ran to the door of a nearby apartment and was taken in to safety. The victim,…

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 Plevac

Details

AGLC: R v Plevac [1999] NSWCCA 351
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 351
Decision Date: 28 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Plevac involved the prosecution of the defendant, Plevac, for the murder of his wife. The court, in this instance, was the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Harper. The crux of the dispute was whether Plevac had deliberately killed his wife by setting her alight, a charge which he vehemently denied. The case hinged on the interpretation of circumstantial evidence and the motive behind the alleged crime, as well as the admissibility of certain evidence including a letter that was claimed to have been written by the deceased.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate content of the charge to the jury regarding the motive and relationship between the deceased and the defendant, the introduction of new evidence during the trial, specifically a psychiatrist's opinion on the fear of fire, and the admissibility of a letter that the defence had allegedly withheld on the advice of senior counsel. The court had to determine whether the content of the letter indicated any miscarriage of justice, and if the withholding of such evidence constituted a significant error in the trial process.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Harper meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, including the circumstantial evidence of the crime scene and the motive of the defendant. The court found that the prosecution had adequately established the elements of murder through circumstantial evidence, and that the relationship between the victim and the defendant provided a strong motive for the crime. The court also considered the psychiatrist's opinion and found it relevant to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the alleged offence. The letter, despite its contentious introduction, did not ultimately indicate a miscarriage of justice as its content did not materially alter the evidence already presented. The court ultimately found that the trial was conducted fairly and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the conviction of the defendant on the charge of murder. The court found that the evidence, when considered in its entirety, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial process, despite the issues raised, was fair and just. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, confirming the defendant's guilt as per the jury's decision.

Orders