Legal Research
Cases
R v Spina

R v Spina

Case [2005] VSCA 319 22 December 2005

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No. 243 of 2003
	v.
NICOLA SPINA

---

JUDGES:	EAMES and ASHLEY, JJ.A. and HOLLINGWORTH, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 August 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 December 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 319

---

Criminal Law – Multiple counts on one presentment – Murder, false imprisonment, threat to kill – Whether judge should have severed presentment – Whether miscarriage of justice, as the trial played out, because no severance – Relationship evidence – Threats of violence – Reports of violence – Crown reliance upon such evidence only as bearing upon state of mind of victim, and thus the improbability that she would have attacked the applicant – Whether propensity direction required -Crown reliance on post-offence conduct to negate defences of self-defence and provocation in respect of alleged murders – Whether Crown position ambiguous – Whether judge should have directed that such conduct was not relied upon as evidencing consciousness of guilt – Crown reliance on particular alleged lies as evidencing consciousness of guilt – Edward’s direction given in respect thereof – Whether the Crown had also relied upon other alleged lies as evidencing consciousness of guilt – Whether jury left uninstructed about those lies – Crown case reliant upon jury drawing inferences as to applicant’s state of mind at the time of killings – Whether circumstantial evidence direction required – Relevance of circumstance that no submission or exception taken at trial in respect of any of the errors alleged in the conduct of the trial – No errors revealed.

Criminal Law – Sentence – Life sentence – Non-parole period of 25 years – Whether head sentence or non-parole period manifestly excessive – Manifest excess not shown.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R.E. Carlin	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. with Mr P.J. Matthews	John Di Santo & Associates

EAMES, J.A.:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Ashley, J.A. and for the reasons given by his Honour I agree that the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed. I desire to add some remarks only as to grounds 3 and proposed ground 6 with respect to the conviction application.

The learned trial judge dealt with the relationship evidence on several occasions during the trial. After evidence had been given by a number of witnesses the judge gave a direction to the jury as to the evidence of witnesses concerning conversations with Maria Spina about her husband and his treatment of her. The judge reminded the jury that the prosecutor had said that this evidence could not be used to prove that the applicant actually did or said the things alleged, but was relevant only for the limited purpose of assisting them in determining her state of mind at the relevant time.

At the outset of his charge the judge repeated that direction, but also said that the evidence…

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 Spina

Details

AGLC: R v Spina [2005] VSCA 319
Case: [2005] VSCA 319
Decision Date: 22 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Spina, the defendant was convicted of multiple charges, including murder, false imprisonment, and threats to kill, following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central dispute in this appeal revolved around the handling of the case by the trial judge, specifically whether the judge should have severed the charges, which were presented together, and if the trial's progression without severance resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Additional issues pertained to the admissibility of relationship evidence and threats of violence, the Crown's reliance on such evidence to establish the victim's state of mind, and the necessity of certain legal instructions to the jury regarding the Crown's evidence.

The court examined whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the improbability of the victim attacking the defendant, given the evidence of threats and reports of violence. It was also necessary to determine if the Crown's position on the post-offence conduct was sufficiently clear, and if a direction was required to clarify that such conduct was not evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the jury was adequately instructed about the Crown's reliance on particular alleged lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and if the circumstantial nature of the Crown's case required a specific direction to the jury. The court also considered the relevance of the fact that no objections were raised during the trial regarding the alleged errors in the conduct of the trial.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that no miscarriage of justice occurred due to the charges not being severed, and the trial was conducted without manifest error. The court held that the evidence presented, including the relationship evidence and threats of violence, was appropriately admitted and did not necessitate a propensity direction. The Crown's position on post-offence conduct was deemed clear enough without additional direction, and the jury was sufficiently instructed about the Crown's reliance on alleged lies. The court determined that the circumstantial nature of the Crown's case did not require a specific direction to the jury. Lastly, the court reviewed the sentence imposed, a life sentence with a non-parole period of 25 years, and found that neither the head sentence nor the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The appeal was thus dismissed.

Orders