R v VELEVSKI [2000] NSWCCA 445

Reported Decision : 117 A Crim R 30

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v VELEVSKI [2000] NSWCCA 445 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60457/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 12/10/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 October 2000

PARTIES : Regina v Ljobe VELEVSKI JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 38; Hulme J at 39; Barr J at 2

COUNSEL : Crown: LMB Lamprati Applicant: M Thangaraj SOLICITORS : Crown: SE O'Connor Applicant: Murphy's Lawyers Inc CATCHWORDS : Bail - application pending appeal to High Court - test to be applied by Court of Criminal Appeal LEGISLATION CITED : Bail Act 1978, ss 30, 30(2), 30AA R v Giordano (1982) 31 SASR 241 R v Hilton (1986) 7 NSWLR 745 CASES CITED: Marotta v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 265 Parsons v Regina (1998) 72 ALJR 1325 R v Robinson (1991) 65 ALJR 519 R v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1 DECISION : Application refused

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60457/97

SPIGELMAN CJ HULME J BARR J

Thursday, 12 October 2000 REGINA v Ljube VELEVSKI JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite Barr J to deliver the first judgment. 2 BARR J: This is an application for bail pending the hearing by the High Court of Australia of the applicant's appeal against the refusal of this Court to quash his convictions, and ultimately against the verdicts of the jury which produced those convictions. 3 On the night of 19 June 1994 the wife and three children of the applicant were murdered. They were killed with a knife and were found at the house occupied by them and the applicant in a position suggesting that the children had first been killed and then that the wife had been killed. All had been killed, apparently, by a knife which was found in association with the bodies. The body of the applicant's wife was found on top of the bodies of the children. 4 The Crown case was a circumstantial one. One can summarise the trial by saying that the reasonable possibility raised by the defence as justifying an acquittal or standing in the way of convictions was that the wife had first killed the children and then herself. There had been conflicting evidence about wounds which led to the death of the applicant's wife and the conclusions that might be drawn from the evidence. 5 The applicant appealed to this Court and, by a majority, the appeal was dismissed. 6 The applicant applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and, during the argument, a number of grounds were raised. Of course, it is unnecessary for the High Court of Australia to give reasons why it grants special leave and one may not confidently assert that the matter to which the greatest amount of attention was paid during debate in the special leave application was the matter which the High Court considered most important in the application, or which might be more likely than any other point to succeed in the appeal eventually. But it may be said that the High Court seemed to be very concerned about the manner in which expert evidence had been brought and presented, particularly insofar as experts had given evidence about the ultimate questions of murder/murder, or suicide/murder, which were the two practical choices open. 7 As I have implied, special leave to appeal was granted and the Court has been informed that the appeal is likely to be heard during the first six months of next year. I assume for these purposes that there will be a delay until the hearing of the case, at least, of a period of the order of six to nine months. 8 In order to succeed in his application the applicant has to satisfy the provisions of s 30AA of the Bail Act, 1978: Notwithstanding anything in this Act, if: