R v Saliba (No 3) - [2025] NSWSC 296

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Saliba (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 296
Hearing dates: 11 – 14 March 2025, 17 – 20 March 2025, 24 – 26 March 2025
Date of orders: 2 April 2025
Decision date: 02 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Yehia J
Decision:
Dominic Saliba found not guilty of the murder of Bailey Jones, but guilty of manslaughter.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – alleged stabbing by the accused of his cousin – whether it was a deliberate act of the accused that caused the fatal wound – whether the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm – manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act as an alternative to murder – whether the prosecution has excluded the reasonable possibility that the accused acted in self-defence – not guilty of murder – guilty of manslaughter

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 418, 419
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38

Cases Cited:
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
Sivaraja v R; Sivathas v R [2017] NSWCCA 236
Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313; [1992] HCA 31

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Dominic Saliba (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
R Khalilizadeh (Defence)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hugo Law Group (Defence)

File Number(s): 2022/00386498
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

This is a tragic case involving the death of an 18-year-old man, Bailey Jones (“the deceased”), upon sustaining a fatal wound to his upper chest on the evening of 9 December 2022. The events on that evening resulted in the arrest and charge of Dominic Saliba (“the accused”) who is the deceased’s cousin. Mr Saliba was only 20 years old. He was charged with murder.
The family and friends of the deceased as well as the family and friends of the accused have followed the proceedings and are obviously interested in the outcome. I acknowledge the distress and anguish the evidence may have caused interested parties. The deceased’s family have lost a loved one. That loss was far too premature and in circumstances where the deceased was only 18 years old and had his whole life to look forward to.
The accused’s parents and family have sat through the trial of their son charged with murder and are no doubt worried about him and anxious about the result of the proceedings.
It must be noted from the outset, however, that notwithstanding the tragic events, my role as the tribunal of fact is to firmly put aside any sympathy that I may have for anyone either directly or indirectly involved in the trial.
I must also put aside any prejudice that I may hold in relation to the subject matter of the trial, or any other aspect connected to the trial. As I will address in more detail below, my role is to consider the evidence objectively, impartially, and forensically in order to determine whether…

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 Saliba (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Saliba (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 296
Case: [2025] NSWSC 296
Decision Date: 02 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saliba (No 3) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Mr Saliba, was charged with the murder of his cousin. The circumstances of the dispute centred on whether Mr Saliba deliberately stabbed his cousin, and if so, whether he intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The alternative charge considered was manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had excluded the reasonable possibility that Mr Saliba acted in self-defence. The case was tried by a judge alone without a jury.

The court was required to decide several legal issues. Firstly, whether Mr Saliba's actions constituted a deliberate act that caused the fatal wound. Secondly, whether Mr Saliba intended to cause grievous bodily harm or if he acted with the requisite intent for murder. Thirdly, whether the prosecution had successfully excluded the reasonable possibility that Mr Saliba acted in self-defence. Finally, if murder could not be established, whether the alternative charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act was applicable.

The court found that Mr Saliba did not act with the intention necessary to constitute murder. While it was established that Mr Saliba stabbed his cousin, leading to his death, the court could not be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The possibility of self-defence was not entirely excluded, and the court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently disproved this defence. Consequently, Mr Saliba was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The court emphasised the importance of the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defence.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Saliba be found guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The court considered the appropriate sentence, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The specifics of the sentence were not detailed in the summary provided, but it was clear that Mr Saliba's culpability was acknowledged in a lesser charge than murder.

Orders