R v Szitovszky - [2007] VSC 69

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2006

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
CHRISTOPHER SZITOVSZKY	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7-9, 13-14 March 2007
DATE OF RULING:	16 March 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Szitovszky
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 69

---

EVIDENCE – Confessions and Admissions – Whether the accused was a suspect – Whether the accused was in custody.

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 464H(1), s 464(1).

R v Alexander [1994] 2 VR 249, applied.
R v Heaney & Ors [1992] 2 VR 531, applied.
Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Guardian Investments Pty Ltd [1984] VR 1019, followed.
Walsh v Loughnan [1991] 2 VR 351, followed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr G. J. E. Steward with Mr T. Kassimatis	Galbally O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Christopher Szitovszky is charged with the murder of his father, Peter Szitovszky. The murder is alleged to have occurred on 1 July 2004 at Wheelers Hill. Mr Szitovszky was arraigned on 6 June 2006 and pleaded not guilty. His trial commenced on 7 March 2007.

Christopher Szitovszky was born on 12 November 1982. At the time of his father’s death he was 21 years old. He lived with his mother, Helen Szitovszky, and his father at 17 Xavier Drive, Wheelers Hill. According to the account of events he gave police, he discovered his father’s body some time after 5.00 am on 1 July 2004. His father had suffered a number of severe wounds to his body, particularly his neck. According to the account of events given by Christopher Szitovszky, at the time he discovered the body an axe was laying across his father’s chest.

Counsel for the Crown proposes to lead evidence of seven occasions upon which the accused has spoken to police. The seven occasions are the following:

(1)Conversations with Detective Senior Constable Adrian Woodcock, then attached to the Glen Waverley Crime Investigation Unit, and in his presence, in a police car commencing shortly after 6.22 am on 1 July 2004 (Depositions 417-421).
(2)A statement taken by Detective Woodcock and signed by the accused at 1.11 pm on 1 July 2004 (Depositions 546-552).
(3)A conversation with Detective Woodcock which occurred in the Glen Waverley Police Station shortly after the accused’s statement had been signed. (Depositions 429).
(4)A conversation between the accused and the informant, Detective Senior Constable Ronke, a member of the Homicide Squad, and Detective Senior Constable Smith, then a member of the Homicide Squad, at approximately 1.20 pm on 1 July 2004 (Depositions 541-2).
(5)A second statement, taken on this occasion by Detective Ronke, which was signed by the accused at 1.15 pm on 12 July 2004 (Depositions 554-557).
(6)A conversation which the accused had with Detective Ronke and Detective Smith on 19 August 2004 at 1.20 pm (Depositions 544).
(7)A video tape recorded record of interview between Detective…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Szitovszky and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] VSC 69
Decision Date: 16 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was R v Szitovszky, a criminal matter heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue in dispute was the admissibility of a confession made by the accused, Szitovszky, as evidence against him. The court was required to determine whether the confession was obtained in a manner that violated the accused's rights under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Specifically, the court had to decide whether Szitovszky was a suspect and whether he was in custody at the time the confession was made.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 464H(1) and 464(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The court considered whether the confession was admissible by examining the status of the accused at the time of the confession and whether the confession was obtained in a manner that complied with the legal protections afforded to suspects in custody. The court also referenced and applied the principles established in previous cases such as R v Alexander, R v Heaney & Ors, Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Guardian Investments Pty Ltd, and Walsh v Loughnan to aid in its decision.

The court meticulously evaluated the circumstances under which the confession was made, assessing whether Szitovszky was considered a suspect and whether he was in custody. The reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the evidence presented regarding the status of the accused and the conditions under which the confession was obtained. Ultimately, the court found that the confession was indeed admissible, as Szitovszky was not considered a suspect and was not in custody at the time of the confession, thus satisfying the requirements of the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

No final orders were explicitly stated in the text provided, but it can be inferred that the decision allowed the confession to be used as evidence in the trial against Szitovszky.

Orders