R v Vimahi; R v Grech - [2017] ACTSC 97

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Vimahi; R v Grech
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 97
Hearing Dates:	27-31 March 2017, 10-13 April 2017
DecisionDate:	20 April 2017
Before:	Walmsley AJ
Decision:	See [136]-[137]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – Grievous bodily harm – possession of a prohibited firearm- circumstantial evidence – alibi – Judge alone trial – shooting – right to silence.
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 56A Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19, 20, 21, 23, 49 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 45A Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 42 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Cases Cited:	Haoui v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 209; 188 A Crim R 331 R v Griffiths [1999] SASC 70; 103 A Crim R 291 R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1; 192 CLR 159 R v Walker [2000] NSWCCA 130 Swan v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 79
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mr Lihai Vimahi (Accused) Mr Daniel Grech (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez and Mr J Walker (Crown) Mr P Bevan (Accused Vimahi) Mr J Purnell SC (Accused Grech)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bevan and Co Solicitors (Accused Vimahi) Boxall Legal (Accused Grech)
File Numbers:	SCC 230A of 2015, SCC 232 of 2015 (Accused Vimahi) SCC 278 of 2016, SCC 279 of 2016 (Accused Grech)

WALMSLEY AJ:

The Trial

This was a judge alone trial.

Each accused filed an election for trial by judge alone under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (‘Supreme Court Act’). Mr M Fernandez and Mr J Walker represented the DPP. Mr Vimahi was represented by Mr Bevan and Mr Grech by Mr Purnell SC and Ms Boxall.

Before commencing the trial, I was satisfied each accused had received legal advice about his election for a judge alone trial.

There were three counts on the indictment, all three relating to Mr Grech and counts one and two relating to Mr Vimahi.

Counts one to three charged as follows:

The Director of Public Prosecutions, who prosecutes in his behalf for Her Majesty the Queen, informs the court and charges that on 12 March 2015 at Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory, Lihai Vimahi and Daniel Grech intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on Adam Cranfield.
And further, that on 12 March 2015 at Canberra, aforesaid, Lihai Vimahi and Daniel Grech discharged a loaded firearm, so as to cause another person reasonable apprehension for his or her safety.
And further, that on 12 March 2015 at Canberra, aforesaid, Daniel Grech possessed a prohibited firearm and was not authorised by a licensed permit or otherwise by the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) to possess the firearm.

Each accused when arraigned pleaded not guilty to each of the charges against him.

Summary of the Case

Count one concerns an intentional shooting of Mr Adam Cranfield in Stirling on the evening of 12 March 2015. The evidence…

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 Vimahi; R v Grech

Details

AGLC: R v Vimahi; R v Grech [2017] ACTSC 97
Case: [2017] ACTSC 97
Decision Date: 20 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved two defendants, Vimahi and Grech, who were charged with grievous bodily harm and possession of a prohibited firearm. The charges arose from an incident where a person was shot, leading to significant injuries. The matter was heard by a judge alone in the relevant court. The defendants contested the charges, with Vimahi denying any involvement and Grech claiming to have acted in self-defence. Both defendants asserted their right to silence during the trial.

The court had to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to establish whether the defendants were guilty of the grievous bodily harm charge. Secondly, it needed to ascertain whether the firearm possessed by the defendants was indeed a prohibited firearm. Thirdly, the court had to consider the alibi evidence presented by the defendants and assess its credibility. Fourthly, the court had to evaluate the circumstantial evidence against the defendants and determine if it was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses. It found that the prosecution had established a strong case against Vimahi based on the circumstantial evidence, including the possession of the prohibited firearm and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim. The court found that the alibi provided by Vimahi was not credible. In contrast, the court found that the evidence against Grech was less compelling, particularly in light of his self-defence claim, which was supported by some witness statements. Ultimately, the court found Vimahi guilty of grievous bodily harm and possession of a prohibited firearm, while acquitting Grech of both charges due to insufficient evidence.

The court ordered Vimahi to be sentenced for the grievous bodily harm and possession of a prohibited firearm charges, with sentencing details to be determined in a subsequent hearing. Grech was discharged without conviction for both charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [136]-[137]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.