R v Suteski [2002] NSWCCA 509

R v Suteski [2002] NSWCCA 509

The out-of-court representations made by Sakisi in the ERISP were admissible under Evidence Act s 65(2)(d) as representations against interest. The trial judge gave correct and sufficient directions regarding joint criminal enterprise and the scope of the conduct contemplated by the appellant. The evidence admissible against the appellant was capable of supporting the Crown case that infliction of grievous bodily harm was within the scope of the enterprise or contemplated as a possibility, supporting the verdict of guilty for murder. The sentence for murder was not manifestly excessive given the significant moral culpability and lack of mitigating circumstances.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Sneza Suteski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal against sentence dismissed; Crown appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction for Murder, Appeal Against Sentence, Accessory Before the Fact, Fraud by Deception, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Common Purpose Murder, Sentencing Principles, Crown Appeal Against Leniency
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction for Murder Appeal Against Sentence Accessory Before the Fact Fraud by Deception Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Joint Criminal Enterprise Common Purpose Murder +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Sneza Suteski

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of out-of-court statement (ERISP) under Evidence Act s 65
  2. 2 Directions to jury on scope of joint criminal enterprise and appellant's liability for murder
  3. 3 Whether verdict of guilty of murder unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The out-of-court representations made by Sakisi in the ERISP were admissible under Evidence Act s 65(2)(d) as representations against interest. The trial judge gave correct and sufficient directions regarding joint criminal enterprise and the scope of the conduct contemplated by the appellant. The evidence admissible against the appellant was capable of supporting the Crown case that infliction of grievous bodily harm was within the scope of the enterprise or contemplated as a possibility, supporting the verdict of guilty for murder. The sentence for murder was not manifestly excessive given the significant moral culpability and lack of mitigating circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal against sentence dismissed; Crown appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal against sentence granted.