R v Dukagjini [2021] NSWSC 1528

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dukagjini [2021] NSWSC 1528 Hearing dates: 15-26 November 2021 Date of orders: 26 November 2021 Decision date: 26 November 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Fagan J Decision: Verdict: the accused is found guilty of the murder of Tatiana Sokoloff at Haberfield on 6 September 1986 Catchwords: CRIME — Murder — Cold case CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: Binns v R [2017] NSWCCA 280 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Martin Dukagjini (Accused) Representation: Counsel: V Garrity (Crown) D McMahon (Accused)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Murphy's Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2019/00388348 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. Martin Dukagjini is before the Court charged with the murder of Tatiana Sokoloff at Haberfield on 6 September 1986. The Crown consented to an application by the accused that he be tried by Judge alone and an order to that effect was accordingly made on 20 October 2021. The trial commenced on 15 November 2021 when the accused was arraigned before me and the Crown case was opened.

The case opened by the Crown 1. Tatiana Sokoloff was 56 years old. She was a lecturer in Italian at the University of Sydney. Ms Sokoloff occupied a free-standing single story dwelling at 57 Dudley Street, Haberfield. She lived with and cared for her 87-year-old mother, Klaudia, who was frail and deaf, with no hearing in the right ear and 90% loss in the left. The Crown alleges that at some time between 5:00pm and 7:00pm on Saturday, 6 September 1986 the accused broke into Ms Sokoloff's home to steal from it. It is alleged that he encountered Ms Sokoloff in a sunroom at the rear of the house and killed her by a combination of strangulation with an electrical cord that he cut from an iron and blunt force injuries to her head, inflicted with a piece of timber approximately 900mm long and 100mm by 50mm (4" x 2") that was later found at the scene. 2. The deceased's mother was asleep from about 4:15pm on the day in question. When she woke at about 10:00pm she was unable to locate her daughter. As she moved from room to room looking for her, she found that most rooms of the house had been ransacked. The contents of cupboards and drawers had been strewn on the floors of the rooms. Klaudia phoned some friends and two men, who knew both ladies, attended at about 1:00am on 7 September. When they arrived Klaudia discovered her daughter's body. The police were summoned and the crime scene was thoroughly examined and photographed. The cord used to strangle the deceased was still around her neck. It and the piece of timber with which she was bludgeoned were seized. Examination of the home for fingerprints was unsuccessful. 3. The Crown case is that extensive inquiries in 1986 and 1987 failed to identify a perpetrator. Inquiries were made amongst tradesmen who carried out work at the home, neighbours, colleagues and students from the University, people with whom the deceased did business in the locality and others from whom she bought antiques and jewellery, or to whom she sold such items. 4. Blood swabs and other forensic items from the scene were retained. DNA testing and comparison was not yet available in 1986. It was not introduced until the early 1990s. It is the Crown case that in 2019 pyjama pants that the deceased had been wearing when she was killed were examined and that blood spots on this item yielded DNA with a partial profile the same as that of the accused. Blood staining on the piece of timber that is alleged to have been one of the murder weapons yielded DNA with the same Y-STR profile as that of the accused. A swab from a blood spot on the tiled patio outside the rear of the house yielded DNA with a partial profile the same as the accused's. 5. The Crown case is that the DNA matching is circumstantial evidence that the accused was in the house at the time the deceased was killed and that he must have been the assailant. The Crown also relies upon evidence that the accused was in Australia at the time of the murder and that he is the only male in his line of descent who was here. The latter point is relevant to the assessment of one of the DNA comparisons. The Crown alleges that the accused lived at 105 Alt Street, Ashfield in September 1986, only about 3 km from the deceased's home. It alleges that he had a tendency to break and enter private property, based upon evidence that on 6 August 1984 he broke into business premises in Summer Hill to steal property and that he carried out similar offences on private homes in 1988 and 1989.