Papanikolaou v R; Tomaras v R [2021] NSWCCA 135

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Papanikolaou v R; Tomaras v R [2021] NSWCCA 135 Hearing dates: 23 April 2021 Date of orders: 30 June 2021 Decision date: 30 June 2021 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Hamill J at [2] Hidden AJ at [121] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal on ground 8 is refused pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW). (2) Otherwise, and where necessary, leave to appeal against conviction is granted. (3) The appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - arson - whether verdict unreasonable - circumstantial case - independent assessment of the evidence - whether all inferences consistent with innocence excluded - where appellant relies on deficiencies in expert evidence - evidence not to be considered in a vacuum - whether fire deliberately lit - electrical fault - arcing - where experts concede "possibility" of accident - other circumstantial evidence relied on by prosecution - insurance claim - telephone intercepts - coy references to "a certain job" - "shonky things" - invoice for "project management" - evidence of chasing debt - consciousness of guilt - admission by one co-accused - "a bread, cheese and diesel" - strong prosecution case - verdicts not unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - failure of prosecution to call witness - whether "Mahmood" direction required - whether absence of witness gave rise to reasonable doubt - where prosecutor formed the view that witness not reliable - where prosecutor offered to assist accused to call witness - forensic disadvantage CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - circumstantial evidence - directions - whether judge required to identify particular inference - where direction not sought at trial - where several innocent inferences relied on - whether direction against applicants' interests Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 195(1)(b), s 197(1)(b) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15 Cases Cited: Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7 Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15 Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 47; [2017] NSWCCA 78 Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285; [2002] HCA 45 Hawi v R [2014] NSWCCA 83; (2014) 244 A Crim R 169 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; [1992] HCA 56 Koloamatangi v R [2020] NSWCCA 52; (2020) 282 A Crim R 160 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 Popovic v R [2016] NSWCCA 202 R v Gibson [2002] NSWCCA 401 R v Kneebone (1999) 47 NSWLR 450; [1999] NSWCCA 279 R v Manley (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 15 December 1994, unrep) RPS v The Queen (2000) 1999 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 The Queen v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; [1984] HCA 38 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; [1983] HCA 42 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Angelos Papanikolaou (Applicant) Con Tomaras (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Tzovaras - Solicitor Advocate (Applicant Papanikolaou) T Woods (Applicant Tomaras) E Balodis (Respondent)