R v Zappia

In the case of R v Zappia, the appellant was jointly charged with Mr Kamleh for the murders of Mr Rasti and Ms Ellul, with the judge ordering separate trials. The key issue for the court was whether the jury was properly directed in considering the scope of the joint enterprise, particularly in relation to the manslaughter of Ms Ellul. The court had to decide if the appellant's conviction for her death was safe, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence against him.

The court concluded that while the direction to the jury regarding the joint enterprise was adequate in relation to Mr Rasti's death, it was not sufficiently clear in relation to Ms Ellul's death. The evidence suggested that the appellant and Mr Kamleh were present at the scene of the crime, but there was no direct evidence of who committed the act of shooting. The prosecution relied on telephone conversations and other circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant's involvement. The court found that the jury, even if properly directed, might not have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt in relation to Ms Ellul's death.

As a result, the court decided to dismiss the appeal against the conviction for the manslaughter of Mr Rasti but allowed the appeal against the conviction for the manslaughter of Ms Ellul. The conviction for her death was set aside, and a retrial was ordered. The single sentence imposed by the judge was also set aside.

The judges unanimously agreed with the Chief Justice's reasons and the proposed orders.