R v Rihia - [2000] VSCA 235

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 162 of 1999

THE QUEEN
	v.
HAMIA RIHIA

---

JUDGES:	TADGELL, CHERNOV, JJ.A. and BALMFORD, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 November 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 November 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 235

---

Criminal law – Intentionally causing serious injury – Character evidence – Whether evidence of bad character admissible – Discretion to exclude.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C.	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr A.H. Swanwick

TADGELL, J.A.:

I shall invite Chernov, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

The applicant, who is now aged 48, pleaded not guilty in the County Court at Melbourne on 25 February 1999 to one count of intentionally causing serious injury to his wife ("the complainant") and one count of recklessly causing serious injury to her by pouring boiling water over her neck, shoulders and back. The maximum penalty in respect of the first offence is 12½ years' imprisonment; in respect of the second it is 10 years' imprisonment. After a trial lasting ten days the jury returned a verdict of not guilty to count 1 and guilty to count 2. After hearing a plea in mitigation made on his behalf, the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant on 20 July 1999 to be imprisoned for 18 months and ordered that 12 months of the sentence be suspended for three years. Initially the applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence but the application in relation to sentence was abandoned after he obtained leave to do so.

I turn first to the circumstances relevant to the offending. The applicant and the complainant are New Zealanders who have lived in Australia for many years. They have been married since about 1975. In May 1996 the applicant went to New Zealand, apparently for an indefinite stay. While he was there, the complainant told him that she did not wish their marriage to continue. The applicant returned to Australia in November 1996 and the complainant confirmed what she had earlier told him about wanting to end the marriage. It seems that the applicant was reluctant to accept this situation and became upset, angry and abusive towards the complainant. For a while after his return, however, he remained at the matrimonial home. On one occasion during this period the complainant, in order to be alone and away from the applicant,

decided to occupy a bedroom with a latch on the door so that she could lock out the applicant. This made him angry and in the course of one of his expressions of anger, he threatened to pour boiling water and petrol on her.

The applicant was eventually persuaded by the complainant in early 1997 to leave the house, having been given money by her to find alternative accommodation. The complainant continued to live in the house with her daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren. After the applicant had moved out, he continued 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 Rihia

Details

AGLC: R v Rihia [2000] VSCA 235
Case: [2000] VSCA 235
Decision Date: 17 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rihia, the High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the admissibility of evidence regarding the accused's character in a criminal trial. The accused, Rihia, was on trial for intentionally causing serious injury to another person. The primary issue before the court was whether evidence of Rihia's bad character was admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and whether the trial judge had exercised the discretion to exclude such evidence appropriately.

The court examined the provisions of the Evidence Act that govern the admissibility of character evidence in criminal proceedings. It considered whether the evidence of Rihia's bad character was relevant to an issue in the case and whether it could potentially prejudice the jury against the accused. The court also looked at the discretion afforded to trial judges under the Act to exclude evidence of bad character if it was deemed unfair to the accused. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had exercised this discretion correctly, taking into account the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence against its probative value.

After careful consideration, the court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of Rihia's bad character. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. The court emphasised that while evidence of bad character could be relevant in certain circumstances, it must be carefully weighed against the risk of unfair prejudice. In this case, the trial judge had not adequately balanced these considerations, leading to an incorrect admission of the evidence. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, highlighting the importance of correctly applying the principles governing the admissibility of character evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders