Rossi v R

Rossi was charged with intentionally causing serious injury to another person, and with fleeing the scene of the crime. The case was heard by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred by not directing the jury that there could be reasons for the appellant's flight from the scene other than consciousness of guilt. Another issue was whether there was a failure to take all reasonable steps to find a witness, and therefore, it was not established that the witness was not available to give evidence pursuant to section 65 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).

The court found that the trial judge did not err by not directing the jury that there could be reasons for the appellant's flight from the scene other than consciousness of guilt. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding flight from the scene, and that the judge was not obliged to give an additional direction. Furthermore, the court found that there was a failure to take all reasonable steps to find a witness, and therefore, it was not established that the witness was not available to give evidence. However, the court held that this error did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, and did not affect the safety of the appellant's conviction.

In conclusion, the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence, finding that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury, and that any error in failing to establish the unavailability of a witness did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice.