R v Vella - [2007] VSC 585

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1432 of 2007

THE QUEEN

CRAIG ANTHONY VELLA

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN, J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 - 17, 20 - 24, 27 – 31 August 2007
DATE OF RULING:	3 September 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Craig Anthony Vella
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 585

---

Criminal law – Murder Trial – No case submission.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Lincoln	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Haag	Amad & Amad Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Haag on behalf of the accused has submitted that there is no case for the accused man to answer on the charge of murder.

The alleged offence of murder occurred on the 27^th of April 2006. The relevant law governing self-defence is to be found in Part 1 Division 1 Subdivision (1AA) of the Crimes Act 1958.

Section 9AC is of application:
“Murder – ‘self-defence’
A person is not guilty of murder if he or she carries out the conduct that otherwise constitutes murder while believing the conduct to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another person from the infliction of death or really serious injury.”

It is accepted by the prosecution, rightly, on the material, that the question of self‑defence is raised.

Put simply, Mr Haag submits that it would be impossible for the prosecution to rebut the proposition that the accused did not believe that his conduct was necessary to defend himself from the infliction of death or really serious injury.

The circumstances surrounding the death of Michael Dewhirst can be stated relatively briefly. On the morning of 27 April 2006 the deceased spoke to Naomi Vella, the daughter of the accused, outside the Amcal Chemist in Palmerston Street, Melton. He threatened the accused in strong terms. Naomi Vella went to the accused’s house and told him of the threats. The accused left his home to go to the same chemist’s shop to receive medication. Along that journey he went with his daughter to the local Office of Corrections office. There he encouraged his daughter to report threats which had been made to her. Although it appears that no direct threats were made to Naomi Vella, it appears that the accused thought that threats had been made to her. For present purposes whether the threats had been made to her about herself or about her father is not material.

The accused was overheard in conversation with an acquaintance by an Inspector of police, Inspector Payne. A knife said by the Crown to be the murder weapon was shown to both Naomi Vella and the witness Micah Duncan.

The accused met Micah Duncan at the chemist and the two of them set off north in Palmerston Street towards the accused’s home. They were on the eastern footpath. At a point before they had reached the intersection of Palmerston Street and Essex Drive, 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 Vella

Details

AGLC: R v Vella [2007] VSC 585
Case: [2007] VSC 585
Decision Date: 3 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Vella, the defendant was on trial for the alleged murder of an individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the prosecution sought to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The central dispute involved whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction for murder. The defendant, through their legal representation, contested the sufficiency of the evidence provided.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the defendant for murder. This required the court to evaluate the strength and credibility of the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic findings, and any other relevant material. The court was tasked with determining if the evidence, when viewed as a whole, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant was guilty of the crime.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously examined each piece of evidence presented by the prosecution. It found that there were significant gaps and inconsistencies in the testimonies and forensic evidence, which undermined the reliability and sufficiency of the case. Consequently, the court concluded that the prosecution had not met the threshold required to establish a prima facie case of murder. Therefore, the court ruled that there was no case to answer, leading to the dismissal of the charges against the defendant. The court ordered that the defendant be released immediately from custody.

Orders