R v Tulisi

In the case of R v Tulisi, the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm, aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and unlawful wounding. The case was heard by the court of appeal where the appellant contested his conviction and sentence on several grounds. The first ground of appeal was that the jury were mistakenly supplied with photographs that had not been tendered and were directed to ignore them. The second ground was that the prosecutor did not call a particular witness who may have been present at the scene of the alleged assault. The third ground was that the trial judge provided to the jury written directions which were deficient in relation to the conspiracy count. The fourth ground was that the trial judge allowed the prosecution to call evidence in rebuttal. The fifth ground was that the trial judge erred in leaving an email to the jury as evidence affecting the credit of a defence witness. The sixth ground was that the trial judge erred in his direction as to the possibility of different verdicts on the conspiracy charges against the two co-accused.

The court considered each ground of appeal and found that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court found that the trial judge's direction to ignore the photographs was sufficient to ensure that the jury would not be influenced by them. The court found that the prosecutor had a sufficient basis to conclude that the witness was not a witness of credit and had reason to lie. The court found that the written directions on conspiracy were deficient but no substantial miscarriage of justice resulted when considered in the context of the summing up as a whole. The court found that the trial judge did not err in permitting the prosecution to call evidence in rebuttal and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court found that it was not open to leave the email to the jury as something which could be used to assess the defence witness’ credibility and that no miscarriage of justice resulted from its admission. Finally, the court found that the trial judge erred in his direction as to the possibility of different verdicts on the conspiracy charges against the two co-accused and that the verdicts on conspiracy were inconsistent. The appeal was allowed on this ground and the conviction for conspiracy was quashed and a finding of not guilty was entered on this count.

The court confirmed the sentence of imprisonment for six years on other counts and substituted a non-parole period of four years.