R v Zullo - [1993] QCA 208

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 208

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 51 of 1993

Brisbane

[R. v. Zullo]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
RICARDO FRANK ZULLO

Appellant

C.A. No. 55 of 1993

THE QUEEN
v.
RICARDO FRANK ZULLO

Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

Fitzgerald P.
Pincus J.A.
Thomas J.A.

Judgment delivered 9 June 1993

Reasons for judgment by the court

IN APPEAL NO. 51 OF 1993 APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED.
CONVICTION QUASHED. DIRECTION THAT A JUDGMENT AND VERDICT OF
ACQUITTAL BE ENTERED.
IN APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1993 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S APPEAL AGAINST
SENTENCE DISMISSED.

Counsel:	Mr. P. Rutledge for the Crown Mr. A. Kimmins for the Appellant Zullo
Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the Crown McLaughlins for the appellant Zullo
Hearing Date:	10 May 1993

THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 51 of 1993

Brisbane
Before Fitzgerald P

Pincus J.A. Thomas J.A.

[R v. Zullo]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N
v.
RICARDO FRANK ZULLO

Appellant

C.A. No. 55 of 1993

THE QUEEN
v.
RICARDO FRANK ZULLO

Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 9 June 1993

The appellant Zullo has been twice tried in relation to the killing on 2 May, 1991 of one Gilligan. At the first trial the appellant was convicted of murder, but on appeal a majority of the Court took the view that the conviction was unsatisfactory in some respects and a new trial was ordered. The appellant was convicted again, but of manslaughter and was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, with a recommendation for eligibility to apply for parole on 1 September, 1994. The Crown has appealed against that sentence.

In this appeal, it is said on behalf of the appellant Zullo
("the appellant") that the learned trial judge's directions were
erroneous and that the verdict was unsafe.
In some ways the issues raised in the appeal have a resemblance
to those previously litigated in this Court.

The relevant incident occurred about 3 a.m. in Orchid Avenue, Surfers Paradise on 2 May, 1991. There were a substantial number of people in the vicinity at the time, some of whom had been engaged in a fight or fights shortly before a stabbing with a knife occurred; that caused Gilligan's death. Only two people, occupants of a taxi which was in the vicinity, claimed to have seen the stabbing and both said that the assailant was a man in a red (or similar colour) shirt; the Crown case was that the appellant was that man. The two people in the taxi were Messrs Lankester and Brown. The appellant was not otherwise identified but there was some evidence from police officers, Dunn and Perrett, that on

13 May, 1991 they had conversations with the appellant, in the course of which he made statements tending to incriminate himself.

The appellant gave no evidence before the jury. Although there were other witnesses who described events which took place before the killing,…

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 Zullo

Details

AGLC: R v Zullo [1993] QCA 208
Case: [1993] QCA 208
Decision Date: 9 June 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Zullo, the appellant, Ricardo Frank Zullo, was convicted of manslaughter after a second trial, having previously been convicted of murder in a trial that was quashed on appeal. The Crown appealed against the manslaughter conviction and sentence. The primary legal issues were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were erroneous and whether the verdict was unsafe. The Court of Appeal found that the judge's directions concerning the confession of another person, Beard, were misdirected as they suggested the jury needed to be satisfied that Beard's confession had substance to acquit Zullo, rather than considering the confession as part of the overall evidence. Additionally, the judge failed to adequately address the unreliability of witness identification evidence, particularly regarding the witness Lankester's inconsistent accounts of whether he saw the stabbing. The Court held that these errors, combined with other weaknesses in the Crown's case, made the conviction unsafe. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a verdict of acquittal was directed. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders