R v St - [2022] VSC 450

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0327

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
ST	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 June 2022
DATE OF RULING:	11 August 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v ST
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 450

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Accused charged with manslaughter, violent disorder and affray – Accused one of a group of ten who attacked the deceased – Whether accused inflicted the fatal stab wound.

EVIDENCE – Accused of Burmese ethnicity – All members of the group of ten of an ethnicity other than Caucasian – Whether DNA evidence of the likelihood ratio of the accused being a contributor to the mixed DNA profile on the handle of a knife obtained using the Australian Caucasian Database should be tendered – Likelihood ratio of the accused being a contributor to the mixed DNA profile using the Australian Asian Database provides slight support for that proposition – Whether probative value of the Australian Asian Database likelihood ratio is low – Whether that evidence should be excluded as being unfairly prejudicial – Evidence of the Australian Caucasian Database likelihood ratio excluded – Evidence of the Australian Asian Database likelihood ratio admitted – Evidence Act 2008, ss 55 and 137.

EVIDENCE – Whether evidence of ‘escalating gang violence’ and of an incident on the day prior to the fatal attack relevant – Whether prejudicial effect of evidence outweighs its probative value – Evidence excluded - Evidence Act 2008, ss 55 and 137.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr E Dober	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Edney with Ms S Stafford	Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

ST is charged on indictment with manslaughter, violent disorder and affray.

The charges arise out of an incident at the Brimbank Shopping Centre on 16 June 2020 in which Solomone Taufeulungaki (‘the deceased’) was physically assaulted by a group of ten youths and suffered a fatal single stab wound to the chest. Both ST and the deceased were 15 years of age at the time.

The Crown case is that ST inflicted the stab wound (count 1); that he was part of a group of at least six who together both threatened and used violence with a common intention of assaulting the deceased and whose conduct, taken together, caused injury (count 2); and that he used unlawful violence that would cause a person of reasonable firmness to be terrified (count 3).

Pre-trial, the defence argues for the exclusion of two items of evidence. The first is evidence of the likelihood that ST is a contributor to the mixed DNA profile on the handle of the knife found next to the body of the deceased. The second is evidence of an incident at the Brimbank Shopping Centre on the afternoon of 15 June 2020, said by the Crown to be the trigger or spark leading to the 16 June 2020…

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 St

Details

AGLC: R v St [2022] VSC 450
Case: [2022] VSC 450
Decision Date: 11 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, the accused, St, was charged with manslaughter, violent disorder, and affray, in connection with an incident in which a group of ten individuals, including the accused, attacked a deceased person. The critical issue was whether the accused was responsible for the fatal stab wound inflicted on the deceased. Additionally, the court had to determine the admissibility of certain DNA evidence and other potentially prejudicial information regarding the circumstances surrounding the attack.

The court considered whether the likelihood ratio obtained using the Australian Caucasian Database, which suggested a low probability of the accused being a contributor to the mixed DNA profile on the handle of a knife, should be tendered. The court also evaluated the likelihood ratio obtained using the Australian Asian Database, which provided slight support for the proposition that the accused was a contributor. Given the accused's ethnicity, the court found the probative value of the Australian Asian Database likelihood ratio to be higher and excluded the evidence obtained using the Australian Caucasian Database as unfairly prejudicial. The court admitted the evidence derived from the Australian Asian Database.

Further, the court assessed the admissibility of evidence related to escalating gang violence and an incident occurring the day before the fatal attack. The court found that the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value and thus excluded it from consideration. The court's decisions were made in accordance with sections 55 and 137 of the Evidence Act 2008.

The court ruled that the evidence of the Australian Asian Database likelihood ratio was admissible, while the evidence of the Australian Caucasian Database likelihood ratio was excluded. Additionally, evidence of escalating gang violence and the prior incident was excluded due to its prejudicial nature. The case now proceeds with the admitted evidence, focusing on the central issue of whether the accused inflicted the fatal stab wound.

Orders