Legal Research
Cases
R v Spiteri-Ahern (No 11)

R v Spiteri-Ahern (No 11)

Case [2017] NSWSC 1820 21 December 2017

Criminal Liability

Circumstantial Evidence

Reasonable Hypothesis

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Spiteri-Ahern; R v Barber; R v Zraika (No 11) [2017] NSWSC 1820
Hearing dates: 16-18, 21-23, 28, 29, 31 August 2017, 1, 4, 6-8, 11-14, 18-20, 25-28 September 2017, 4, 9-11, 13, 16 October 2017
Date of orders: 21 December 2017
Decision date: 21 December 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) On the charge of murder of Raymond Pasnin, Ms Louise Spiteri-Ahern is guilty as charged;
(2) On the charge of accessory before the fact to murder, Ms April Barber is not guilty of the charge preferred;
(3) On the charge of concealing a serious indictable offence, Mr Amin Zraika not guilty of the charge preferred; and
(4) Verdicts entered.

Catchwords:
CRIME – judge alone trial – 3 accused charged with murder, accessory before the fact to murder and concealing a serious indictable offence (accessory) respectively – discussion of circumstantial evidence; reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt; and drawing inferences – factual conclusions prove guilt of murder accused and do not prove, to the requisite standard, the guilt of the other two accused.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Bruce v Williams (1989) 46 A Crim R 122
Carr v Baker [1936] SR (NSW) 301
Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) v Maxwell [1978] 3 All ER 1140;
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473; [1985] HCA 29
IL v The Queen (2017) 91 ALJR 764; [2017] HCA 27 Osland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8;
Jones v Sutherland Shire Council [1979] 2 NSWLR 206;
R v Ancutta (1990) 49 A Crim R 307
R v Ray (2003) 57 NSWLR 616; [2003] NSWCCA 227
R v Russell [1933] VLR 59
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
Wilson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2017] NSWCA 128

Texts Cited:
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 4
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Report 93: Review of section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), December 1999

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
2014/00180060:
Regina (Crown)
Louise Catherine SPITERI-AHERN (Accused)

2014/00180279:
Regina (Crown)
April BARBER (Accused)
2014/00235123:
Regina (Crown)
Amin ZRAIKA (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
2014/00180060:
D Patch (Crown)
J Trevallion (Accused)

2014/00180279:
D Patch (Crown)
A Francis (Accused)

2014/00235123:
D Patch (Crown)
Dr R Webb (Accused)

Solicitors:
2014/00180060:
Office of the Director Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Archbold Legal Solutions (Accused)

2014/00180279:
Office of the Director Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bannisters Lawyers (Accused)
2014/00235123:
Office of the Director Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Macquarie Lawyers Burwood (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/00180060; 2014/00180279; 2014/00235123
Publication restriction: Orders made on 19/09/2017:NON PUBLICATION ORDER that the address given for the accused Ms Spiteri-Ahern and her family in the evidence of Constable Daniel Greentree not…

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 Spiteri-Ahern (No 11)

Details

AGLC: Decision restricted [2017] NSWSC 1820
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1820
Decision Date: 21 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Spiteri-Ahern (No 11), three defendants were brought before the court to face serious criminal charges. The accused were charged with murder, accessory before the fact to murder, and concealing a serious indictable offence respectively. The nature of the dispute centred on the interpretation of circumstantial evidence and the application of legal principles in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The legal issues before the court included whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to consider whether there was a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt for each accused and whether the jury was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the factual conclusions drawn from the evidence proved the guilt of the accused to the requisite standard.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and the defendants' statements. The court found that while the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the defendant charged with murder, it did not meet the required standard of proof for the other two accused. The court concluded that there were reasonable hypotheses inconsistent with the guilt of the accessory before the fact and the person charged with concealing a serious indictable offence. Consequently, the court found the defendant charged with murder guilty, while acquitting the other two accused.

Orders