R v Stylianou - [2005] VSCA 123

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 35 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
CHRISTOPHER STYLIANOU

---

JUDGES:	WARREN, C.J., WINNEKE, P. and BUCHANAN, J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MILDURA
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 May 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 123

---

Criminal law – Appeal – Murder of de facto – Non-guilty plea – Whether Faure warning required – Consciousness of guilt – Provocation – Self-defence – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., (D.P.P.) with Mr. D. Brown	Mr. S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr. P. Tehan, Q.C. with Ms. K. Judd	Victoria Legal Aid

WARREN, C.J.:

On 9 December 2004 the applicant was convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria sitting at Mildura of the murder of Narelle Carr on 9 December 2004. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The defence of the applicant was that the deceased was killed by someone other than him. Upon conviction the applicant was sentenced to a term of 19 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed at 15 years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal the conviction and the sentence.

The deceased died of strangulation on 11 January 2004. She was found in bed in a bedroom of her home at Unit 3, 86 Olive Avenue, Mildura.

A post mortem examination was conducted of the deceased by Dr Malcolm John Dodd, forensic pathologist. He observed petechial haemorrhages on the conjunctival membranes of the eye consistent with manual strangulation and asphyxia; patch bruising around the lower part of the right eye, the periorbital area and some bruising on the left eye and periorbital areas; abrasions on the left side of the face and cheek area; and a large area of abrasion consisting of crescent shapes around the cheek and beneath the chin, about 50mm by 15mm in size. Dr Dodd described the latter area as one of abrasion due most likely to manual gripping of the neck or other force to the neck. There were other areas of abrasion over the right side of the chin and the jaw. Dr Dodd noted two areas of bruising on the thigh about 70mm by 40mm in size. Bruising was also observed on the right side of the deceased between the hip and the knee consistent with impact from a club or baton. Dr Dodd further noted some other aged bruising. He concluded that the cause of death was manual neck compression in a woman who sustained multiple areas of blunt force trauma. Dr Dodd gave evidence at the trial of these matters. Dr Dodd also showed photographs at the trial of the upper body and back legs of the deceased taken at the scene of her death. He showed that the photographs revealed lividity indicating that the body was lying in the position shown at the scene for some time.

Toxicology tests were conducted on samples taken from the deceased and detected no presence of alcohol. The tests…

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 Stylianou

Details

AGLC: R v Stylianou [2005] VSCA 123
Case: [2005] VSCA 123
Decision Date: 19 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stylianou involves an appeal by the defendant against a conviction of murder, specifically the murder of their de facto partner. The trial judge had ruled that Stylianou was guilty of the murder, and the case came before the court on appeal. The primary issues before the court were whether a Faure warning was necessary, whether the evidence demonstrated consciousness of guilt, and whether provocation or self-defence could be considered as mitigating factors. The appeal centred around the sufficiency of the evidence presented and the legal principles applied by the trial judge.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in not giving a Faure warning, which is a direction to the jury to consider whether the accused's uncalled evidence could have altered the outcome of the case had it been presented. The court also considered whether the evidence demonstrated consciousness of guilt on the part of the accused, as well as the applicability of provocation and self-defence as potential defences. The court's role was to assess whether the trial judge appropriately applied the relevant legal tests and whether the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.

After a detailed examination of the evidence and the trial judge's directions, the court found no merit in the appeal. The court determined that the trial judge had correctly applied the legal principles relevant to the case and that the jury's verdict was adequately supported by the evidence presented. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's failure to give a Faure warning, as the uncalled evidence did not have the potential to significantly alter the outcome of the case. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence did not demonstrate consciousness of guilt, and that the defences of provocation and self-defence were not applicable in this instance.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of murder. The judgment reinforced the importance of correctly applying legal principles in criminal trials and emphasised the sufficiency of the evidence in supporting the jury's verdict. The final orders confirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, with no changes or modifications to the trial outcome.

Orders