Rasic v R; Johnny Lee Vella v R; Damien Charles Vella v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
HEARING DATE(S):
22 July 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
18 August 2009
JUDGMENT OF:
Basten JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Johnson J at 3
DECISION:
1. Leave granted to each Appellant to appeal against his convictions. 2. Dismiss the appeal of Simon Rasic. 3. Dismiss the appeal of Johnny Lee Vella. 4. Dismiss the appeal of Damien Charles Vella.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeals - robbery in company - obtaining valuable thing by deception - whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence - appeals dismissed
Simon Rasic; Johnny Lee Vella; Damien Charles Vella (Appellants) Regina (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2007/12856 ; 2007/12609; 2007/12610
COUNSEL:
Mr G Nicholson QC (Appellants) Mr P Leask (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Whitby Lawyers (Appellants) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/21/1133
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Williams DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
5 February 2008
2007/12856 2007/12609 2007/12610
BASTEN JA RS HULME J JOHNSON J
18 August 2009
SIMON RASIC v Regina
JOHNNY LEE VELLA v Regina
DAMIEN CHARLES VELLA v Regina
Judgment
1 BASTEN JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Johnson J and with his Honour's reasons.
2 RS HULME J: I agree with the orders proposed by Johnson J and with his Honour's reasons. Although that agreement extends to what has been said concerning the need for leave to appeal, I find it difficult to conceive of circumstances where leave would be refused in a case where there is any significant argument that, in the words of s.6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, "the verdict of the jury ... is unreasonable, or cannot be supported (or) ... there was a miscarriage of justice...".
3 JOHNSON J: The Appellants, Simon Rasic, Johnny Lee Vella and Damien Charles Vella, each appeal against conviction on 22 October 2007, following trial by jury on…
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 Rasic v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
Case
[2009] NSWCCA 202
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Rasic v R involved the appellants who were convicted of robbery in company, obtaining a valuable thing by deception and obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellants sought to appeal their convictions on the basis that they were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The central legal issues were whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the trial judge should have directed an acquittal on the charges of robbery in company and obtaining a financial advantage by deception.
The court examined the evidence presented at trial and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The court found that the jury was entitled to reject the appellants' defence and that the verdicts were not unreasonable. The court also held that the trial judge was correct in refusing to direct an acquittal on the charges of robbery in company and obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The court found that the jury could properly infer that the appellants had acted together in committing the offences, and that the deception element was established by the evidence. The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions upheld.