R v Filippou [2011] NSWSC 1379

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Filippou [2011] NSWSC 1379 Hearing dates: 10/10/2011 - 14/10/2011 Decision date: 18 November 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Mathews AJ Decision: Guilty of murder in relation to both charges Catchwords: MURDER - plea of guilty of manslaughter - provocation - whether loss of self-control - firearm -Judge alone trial Legislation Cited: Crimes Act (NSW) 1900 Cases Cited: Green v R [1997] 191 CLR 334 Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58 Moffa v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 601 R v R (1981) 28 SASR 321 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown Christopher Angelo Filippou (Accused) Representation: P Barnett SC (Crown) P Rosser QC / N Moir (Accused) Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) John Anthony Solicitors (Accused) File Number(s): 2010/208897 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1On 10 October 2011 the accused, Christopher Angelo Filippou, was charged by way of indictment with the following two charges: First , that on 27 June 2010 at Mayfield he murdered Samuel Willis. Second , that on the same day, 27 June 2010 at Mayfield he murdered Luke Willis. 2In relation to both charges the accused pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept this plea and the matter went to trial on the issue of murder. The sole issue raised by the defence related to provocation. 3In accordance with an order previously made on 29 September 2011 a jury had been dispensed with and the trial proceeded by myself alone. 4Considerable efficiencies were gained through the trial being heard by Judge alone, largely because of close co-operation between counsel as to the presentation of evidence. Only those witnesses who were required for cross-examination gave evidence orally; and even in those cases, their evidence in chief often consisted of confirming the accuracy of their written statements. As a result, there was a considerable amount of documentary evidence in the trial, consisting of the statements of all 47 witnesses, in addition to other exhibits. However, only twelve of the Crown witnesses were called to give oral evidence. As a result, the hearing of the trial was completed within a much shorter time than was originally anticipated. 5At the close of the hearing I reserved my judgment as to whether the accused was guilty of murder, as charged, in relation to each of the two counts in the indictment.