R v Valencia Valencia - [2023] NSWSC 163

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Valencia Valencia [2023] NSWSC 163
Hearing dates: 6 February 2023; 7 February 2023; 8 February 2023; 9 February 2023; 10 February 2023; 13 February 2023; 14 February 2023
Date of orders: 24 February 2023
Decision date: 24 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Yehia J
Decision:
Hector Enrique Valencia Valencia found not guilty of the murder of Kimberly McRae, but guilty of manslaughter

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — Murder — Trial by judge alone — Whether the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the deceased — Where cause of death is neck compression — Unlawful and dangerous act — Whether the prosecution has excluded the reasonable possibility that the accused acted in self-defence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 418, 419
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133, 133(3)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss, 65, 191

Cases Cited:
Gall v R; Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
Sivaraja v R; Sivathas v R [2017] NSWCCA 236
Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313; [1992] HCA 31

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Hector Enrique Valencia Valencia (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Everson SC (Crown)
C Wasley (Defence)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James and Jaramillo Lawyers (Defence)

File Number(s): 2020/00043308
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Act 2010 (NSW), there is to be no publication of the contents contained in paragraph [97]. The orders are made on the grounds set out in ss 8(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the Act

Judgment

Introduction

Hector Enrique Valencia Valencia (“the accused”) killed Kimberly McRae (“Kim McRae” or “the deceased”). He accepts that he did so. The issues in this trial include whether the Crown can establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm at the relevant time, and, whether the Crown can exclude, as a reasonable possibility, that the accused believed he had to act to defend himself. The accused accepts that his response was disproportionate to any threat posed by the deceased.
He has pleaded not guilty to count 1 on the indictment, namely, that, between 7 January 2020 and 14 January 2020, he murdered Kim McRae. The accused pleaded guilty to the alternative count that he did unlawfully kill Kim McRae. The plea of guilty to the alternative count is not accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment.
An application was made by the accused to proceed by way of judge alone trial, pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (“CPA”). The Crown consented to that course. An order was made to that effect on 14 October 2022.

Background

Kim McRae was killed some time on the afternoon of 8 January 2020. I will refer to Kim McRae either by her name, or as “the deceased”. She…

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 Valencia Valencia

Details

AGLC: R v Valencia Valencia [2023] NSWSC 163
Case: [2023] NSWSC 163
Decision Date: 24 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Valencia Valencia involved the respondent, Valencia, who was charged with murder. The victim in this case died from neck compression. Valencia was tried by a judge alone, without a jury. The primary issue before the court was whether Valencia intended to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the deceased, and if the prosecution had successfully excluded the reasonable possibility that Valencia acted in self-defence.

The court examined the evidence presented to determine Valencia's intent and whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it occurred, and the evidence of any potential self-defence claim. The court also assessed whether the act was unlawful and dangerous, contributing to the death of the victim. The central legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully negated any reasonable doubt regarding Valencia's self-defence claim.

The court concluded that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Valencia's actions were not in self-defence. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Valencia intended to cause harm, and that the act was both unlawful and dangerous. Consequently, the court found Valencia guilty of murder. The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the application of legal principles regarding intent and self-defence in criminal cases. The final orders of the court were that Valencia be convicted of murder and sentenced accordingly.

Orders