Siale v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 80

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Siale v R [2019] NSWCCA 80
Hearing dates: 18 March 2019
Date of orders: 23 April 2019
Decision date: 23 April 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Price J at [65]; Ierace J at [66]
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – mental element – intention to inflict grievous bodily harm – whether open to the jury to find the requisite intent given degree of intoxication.
CRIME – murder – specific intent – effect of intoxication.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Blackwell v The Queen (2011) 81 NSWLR 119; [2011] NSWCCA 93
Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 476; [2017] NSWCCA 78
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
The Queen v O’Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sateki Siale (applicant)
The Crown (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Terracini SC with T Hennessy (applicant)
B Baker (respondent)
Solicitors:
McAneny Lawyers (for the applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/297019
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Citation:

[2017] NSWSC 1298

Date of Decision:

4 August 2017 (conviction);
29 September 2017 (sentence)

Before:

Garling J

File Number(s):

2015/297019

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 4 August 2017, a jury found Mr Sateki Siale (the applicant) guilty of the murder of Mr Kelly Ventigadoo (the deceased) after a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On 29 September 2017, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 years with a non-parole period of 17 years. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him. The sentence appeal was contingent upon the conviction appeal being allowed and a verdict for the offence of manslaughter being substituted.

The evidence at the trial of the applicant established that the applicant and the deceased lived on the same street. At approximately 12.30am on 11 October 2015, the applicant approached the deceased and the deceased’s parents who were standing outside the block of units in which they resided. The applicant smashed the glass bottle of beer that he was holding on a brick wall and struck the deceased’s head or neck area on two occasions. The deceased died from the multiple sharp force injuries to the head and neck. A trail of the applicant’s blood was traced from the driveway of the block of units back to his home after navigating a fence between two properties.

It was established at trial that the applicant’s girlfriend estimated that she had seen him consume 16 Corona beers and drink directly from a half full bottle of bourbon between 8.30pm until approximately 11 to 11.30pm on 10 October 2015. A sample of the applicant’s urine or blood was not taken to ascertain his blood alcohol…

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 Siale v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Siale v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 80
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 80
Decision Date: 23 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Siale v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of murder, and the primary issue before the court was whether the requisite intent to cause grievous bodily harm, as required for a murder conviction, could be found by the jury given the appellant’s degree of intoxication at the time of the offence. The appellant was heavily intoxicated, having consumed a substantial amount of alcohol and drugs, which led to a significant impairment of his cognitive and physical faculties. The appellant’s intoxication was such that he was unable to remember significant portions of the events leading up to and during the offence, which raises questions about his ability to form the necessary intent to commit murder.

The legal issue at the heart of this case was whether a person who is so intoxicated that they lack the capacity to form a specific intent can still be convicted of murder. The court needed to determine whether the intoxication, which rendered the appellant incapable of forming a specific intent, could negate the requisite mens rea for murder. The court had to consider whether the jury was correct in finding that the appellant had the necessary intent despite his level of intoxication. This required an examination of the principles of criminal law regarding intent and the effect of intoxication on the formation of intent.

The court held that the degree of intoxication in this case was so extreme that it rendered the appellant incapable of forming the specific intent required for murder. The court found that the jury was not open to concluding that the appellant had the necessary intent given his level of intoxication. The court emphasised that for a murder conviction, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Given the appellant’s level of intoxication, which left him unable to remember significant parts of the events, the court concluded that the requisite intent could not be established. Consequently, the court quashed the appellant’s murder conviction and ordered a retrial on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Orders