Rusterholz v Tasmania - [2017] TASCCA 27

[2017] TASCCA 27

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Rusterholz v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 27

PARTIES:  RUSTERHOLZ, Marco Daniel
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 377/2015
DELIVERED ON:  22 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  6 June 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood, Estcourt and Brett JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to evidence – Appeal dismissed – Two counts of murder – Circumstantial evidence and evidence of admissions – Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence – Factors impacting on reliability of witnesses giving evidence of admissions – Admissions corroborated by circumstantial evidence – Jury entitled to accept appellant had admitted his guilt and admissions were true.

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 and Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3476]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Miscarriage of justice – Particular circumstances not amounting to miscarriage – Misdirection or non-direction –Evidence of admissions made by witness to the murders – Direction as to consequences if the jury was satisfied that the admissions were made and that they were true – Direction given in terms requested by defence counsel – Argued on appeal that direction contrary to standard and onus of proof – Direction to be considered within context of entire summing up – Direction did not result in miscarriage of justice.

RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3, 199 CLR 620; Hadchiti v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 63; R v Ayoub [2014] NSWCCA 209; R v Yates [1970] SASR 302, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3470]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  F Cangelosi
             Respondent:  J Ransom
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Simmons Wolfhagen
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2017] TASCCA 27
Number of paragraphs: 89

Serial No 27/2017
File No CCA 377/2015

MARCO DANIEL RUSTERHOLZ v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
ESTCOURT J
BRETT J
22 December 2017

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 27/2017
File No CCA 377/2015

MARCO DANIEL RUSTERHOLZ v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
22 December 2017

I agree with the conclusions of Estcourt J that neither ground of appeal has been made out and the appeal should be dismissed. I agree with his Honour's reasons in relation to ground one. In relation to ground 2, I agree with the reasoning of Brett J in its entirety. I wish to expressly note my agreement with Brett J that the circumstantial case against the appellant, without the evidence of the admissions alleged to have been made by the appellant, was not sufficient to support a verdict of guilty against the appellant on either count. Aside from the contrary views expressed by Estcourt J on this point, I agree with the balance of his Honour's reasons.
The central issue raised by ground 2 was whether the testimony…

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 Rusterholz v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Rusterholz v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 27
Case: [2017] TASCCA 27
Decision Date: 22 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned two counts of murder, brought by the appellant, Rusterholz, against the State of Tasmania. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the jury's verdict of guilty on both counts of murder was unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial. This required the Court to consider the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence and the reliability of evidence relating to admissions allegedly made by the appellant.

The Court reasoned that the circumstantial evidence, when considered as a whole, was capable of supporting the jury's conclusion. Furthermore, the Court found that factors impacting the reliability of witnesses who gave evidence of the appellant's admissions did not render those admissions inherently unreliable, particularly as they were corroborated by the circumstantial evidence. The jury was therefore entitled to accept that the appellant had admitted his guilt and that these admissions were true.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders