R v Vosikata

[2016] ACTSC 193

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Vosikata

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 193

Hearing Date:

1 July 2016

DecisionDate:

2 August 2016

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [4].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Particular offences – offences against the person – murder – plea of guilty – disputed facts hearing – point of contention is inferences to be drawn from admitted facts – open to the prisoner to adduce further evidence at sentence hearing – inappropriate to make findings where further evidence may be adduced.  

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Josaia Vosikata (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr J White SC (Crown)

Mr P Edmonds (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Paul Edmonds & Associates (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 11 of 2016

BURNS J:

1. The prisoner, Josaia Vosikata, has entered a plea of guilty to one charge alleging that on or about 19 April 2015 he murdered Daniela D’Addario.

1. A Statement of Facts has been prepared by the Crown (Exhibit 1), and the matter is listed for sentence on 17 August 2016.

1. On 1 July 2016, the matter was listed before me for a disputed facts hearing, but it quickly became apparent that the prisoner did not dispute anything that was set out in the Statement of Facts. What appears to be the point of contention between the Crown and the prisoner is what inferences should be drawn from the admitted facts. In particular, the prisoner submits that I should not infer:

(a)that he had with him at the time of the murder a bottle of Ilford Rapid Fixer for the purpose of using that substance to incapacitate the deceased; or

(b)that the prisoner obtained entry to the deceased’s apartment as a trespasser on the day he killed her.

1. The matters raised by the prisoner will need to be addressed at some point in the sentencing process, but I have reached the conclusion that it would be premature to make any ruling at this time. The prisoner is still entitled to call or give evidence on these issues at the sentence hearing on 17 August, and it would be inappropriate to make findings on these contentious issues when there remains a possibility that further evidence touching upon these issues may be led.

I certify that the preceding four [4] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date: 2 August 2016