Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 192; Howie J at 194
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
70053/01
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Kirby J
COUNSEL :
G I O Rowling (Crown) S Odgers SC P Byrne SC
SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor D J Humphreys
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder - plea of not guilty - Crown appeal against leniency of sentence - Form 1 offences - obtain benefit by deception- exception to hearsay - ERISP evidence - admissibility of out of court statement where maker unavailable - statement against interest.
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed: 2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted; 3. Appeal against sentence dismissed; 4. Crown appeal against sentence dismissed.
- 1 -IN THE COURT OF
60251/02 60458/02
WOOD CJ AT CL SULLY J HOWIE J
Friday 20 December 2002
Regina v Sneza Suteski
On 25 February 2002, the appellant was indicted on 1 count of murder and 9 counts of obtaining a financial benefit by deception. Having admitted her guilt in relation to the offences of obtaining a benefit by deception, including 66 similar offences on a Form One, the appellant was found guilty of the murder of Mr Richard Peich as an accessory before the fact. She was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment in relation to the offences of obtaining a benefit by deception, and to 22 years (less 36 days of pre-trial custody) in relation to the murder. The appellant appeals the murder conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the…
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 Suteski
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Suteski [2002] NSWCCA 509
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 509
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The respondent, Suteski, was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. The Crown appealed the sentence as being unduly lenient. Suteski, in turn, appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with hearing both appeals. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence and whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient. The court considered whether the evidence in question, which was an out-of-court statement by an unavailable witness, was admissible under the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was so lenient as to shock the conscience of the court.
The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the hearsay evidence. The statement was made by a deceased person who was unavailable to testify, and the court found that it satisfied the criteria for admission as an exception to the hearsay rule. The court noted that the statement was against the declarant's interest and that there were circumstances that gave it sufficient guarantees of reliability. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not so lenient as to shock the conscience of the court. The court noted that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence. The court dismissed both the respondent's appeal against conviction and the Crown's appeal against the leniency of the sentence.
The High Court of Australia dismissed both appeals, affirming the conviction and sentence of the respondent. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the hearsay evidence and that the sentence imposed was not unduly lenient. The court found that the statement in question satisfied the criteria for admission as an exception to the hearsay rule and that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentence.