R v Federici - [2005] NZCA 153

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA394/04
THE QUEEN
v
JOHN FEDERICI
Hearing:10 May 2005

Court:William Young, O'Regan and Robertson JJ
Counsel:G J Foley for Appellant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:16 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
REASONS
(Given by O’Regan J)
Introduction
[1]        The appellant, Mr Federici, was found guilty of the murder of his wife after a trial in the High Court at Auckland in August 1999. He appealed to this Court against his conviction. The appeal was dealt with on an ex parte basis and was dismissed on 3 February 2000. On 4 October 2004 Mr Federici applied to this Court for a rehearing of his appeal under s 14(2) of the Crimes (Criminal Appeals) Amendment Act 2001. Section 15 of that Act requires that a Judge of this Court make a decision as to whether a rehearing will be allowed, but that step was not taken in this case. However, Mr Federici was entitled as of right to a rehearing pursuant to the decision of this Court in R v Smith [2003] 3 NZLR 617. We have therefore dealt with this appeal as if it were a R v Smith rehearing.
Facts
[2]        Mr Federici and his wife were married in 1991 in Australia. They came to New Zealand with their two children in 1996. They lived with Mrs Federici’s mother in Auckland for some period. There were marital difficulties which resulted in separation in July 1998. Attempts at reconciliation were made, but tensions remained, in part caused by Mr Federici’s drinking.
[3]        According to Mr Federici’s account of events (in a video interview with the Police and at trial), he visited his wife at her home in Onehunga on 16 September 1998. There was an argument between them, which included Mrs Federici throwing clothes or coat hangers at him. He then started hitting her, and they ended up on the ground facing each other. He then squeezed the jaw or neck of Mrs Federici and she died.
[4]        After her death, Mr Federici, who had an interest in pathology and was studying bio-medicine at Auckland University, cut an arm off the body of his wife and severely cut at the neck of the body. The Crown’s case was that he had done this to conceal evidence of strangulation. Initially he placed the body in a glory box, but subsequently transferred it to a wheely bin, covering the body with rubbish and dirt. He then hired a van using his wife’s credit card and driver’s licence, loaded it with property, including some of his wife’s belongings, and also loaded the wheely bin containing his wife’s body. He then embarked on a journey around the North Island covering some 2,300 kilometres over a period of three days, taking his younger son with him.
[5]        The Crown’s case was that Mr Federici disposed of evidence of the murder including property belonging to his wife, the knife which he…

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 Federici

Details

AGLC: R v Federici [2005] NZCA 153
Case: [2005] NZCA 153
Decision Date: 16 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction in the case of R v Federici was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. John Federici was found guilty of murdering his wife, and his appeal against this conviction was heard on 10 May 2005. The appeal was dismissed on 16 June 2005. The appeal raised six points, including the failure of the trial judge to leave the issue of provocation to the jury, prosecutor misconduct, improper admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence at the trial, misdirection (or failure to direct) by the trial judge in her summing up, the cumulative effect of these irregularities caused unfairness and an unbalanced summing up, and general unfairness: the trial was, as a whole, unfair. The court found that there was no credible narrative of provocation in this case, and therefore, the trial judge was right not to have left the defence to the jury. The court also found that the conduct of the prosecutor was not unfair, and that the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial material did not lead to an unfair trial. The court found no material misdirection by the trial judge, and rejected the contention that the trial as a whole was unfair.

Orders