Regina v Velevski [1999] NSWCCA 96

Regina v Velevski [1999] NSWCCA 96

By majority, the appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the verdicts were reasonably open to the jury given the circumstantial and medical evidence. The Crown had excluded alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence. Errors alleged in jury directions did not result in substantial miscarriage of justice. Medical evidence adverse to the appellant, particularly blood distribution and scene reconstruction, supported Crown's case. The dissenting judge considered the verdict unsafe and a miscarriage of justice due to imbalance in medical evidence and unresolved reasonable doubt.

Parties
Appellant: Ljube Velevski; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed by majority
Legal Topics
Murder, Unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict, Reasonable Doubt, Circumstantial Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict Reasonable Doubt Circumstantial Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ljube Velevski

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or not supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in directions to the jury regarding circumstantial evidence, lies, onus of proof, and the use of evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Crown excluded reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence, including murder/suicide

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the verdicts were reasonably open to the jury given the circumstantial and medical evidence. The Crown had excluded alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence. Errors alleged in jury directions did not result in substantial miscarriage of justice. Medical evidence adverse to the appellant, particularly blood distribution and scene reconstruction, supported Crown's case. The dissenting judge considered the verdict unsafe and a miscarriage of justice due to imbalance in medical evidence and unresolved reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed by majority

Orders

  • Conviction confirmed
  • Appeal dismissed