Jump to content

Murder of Keith William Allan: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Carola56 (talk | contribs)
Explained the significance of the case in Australian law relating to the definition of beyond reasonable doubt
Tag: speedy deletion template removed
Carola56 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Three men, [[Sudo Cavkic]], [[Costas Athanasi]] and [[Julian Michael Clarke]], were tried and convicted for his murder after three trials before the [[Supreme Court of Victoria]]. This case is an example of a [[murder conviction without a body]]. Allan's body has never been found.
Three men, [[Sudo Cavkic]], [[Costas Athanasi]] and [[Julian Michael Clarke]], were tried and convicted for his murder after three trials before the [[Supreme Court of Victoria]]. This case is an example of a [[murder conviction without a body]]. Allan's body has never been found.


The case is significant in Australian law in that it decided that beyond reasonable doubt should not be expressed as a percentage. In 2005 The Victorian [[Court of Appeal]] annulled the guilty verdict of the first trial in 2004 and ordered a retrial on the ground that the trial judge had failed to answer a question from a member of the jury asking if the term reasonable doubt could be expressed as a percentage.
The case is significant in Australian law in that it decided that beyond reasonable doubt should not be expressed as a percentage. In 2005 The Victorian [[Court of Appeal]] annulled the guilty verdict of the first trial in 2004 and ordered a retrial on the ground that the trial judge had failed to answer a question from a member of the jury asking if the term reasonable doubt could be expressed as a percentage.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/retrial-for-three-on-solicitors-murder/2005/08/02/1122748613584.html</ref>


The trial judge applied a precedent of the [[High Court of Australia]] in Green's Case of 1971 <ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1971/55.html</ref> that judges should not explain to juries the meaning of reasonable doubt, that they should explain only in terms that beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof known to the law, or that further definition would neither be useful or proper<ref>http://www.justinian.com.au/423-article</ref>
The trial judge applied a precedent of the [[High Court of Australia]] in Green's Case of 1971 <ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1971/55.html</ref> that judges should not explain to juries the meaning of reasonable doubt, that they should explain only in terms that beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof known to the law, or that further definition would neither be useful or proper<ref>http://www.justinian.com.au/423-article</ref>


The Victorian Court of Appeal, in a judgment by Justices Vincent, Charles and Osborn, held that the trial judge should have explained to the jury that reasonable doubt was not a percentage, unlike the position in a civil rather than a criminal case where the standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, could be expressed as a percentage of greater than 51-49.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2005/182.html?query=^cavkic</ref>
The Victorian Court of Appeal, in a judgment by Justices Vincent, Charles and Osborn, held that the trial judge should have explained to the jury that reasonable doubt was not a percentage, unlike the position in a civil rather than a criminal case where the standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, could be expressed as a percentage of greater than 51-49.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2005/182.html?query=^cavkic</ref>

In 2006 the second trial resulted in a hung jury. In 2007 all three were again found guilty, and were sentenced by the trial judge, Justice Coldrey, to sentences that ranged from


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 10:28, 30 December 2009

Keith William Allan (1946-2000) is a murdered Australian solicitor.[1] He was educated at Northcote High School and the University of Melbourne, where he completed the degree Bachelor of Laws. He practiced as a solicitor at Avondale Heights, a western suburb of Melbourne located in the City of Moonee Valley. He is a cousin of Jacinta Allan, a Minister in the Victorian state governments of Steve Bracks and John Brumby.

Three men, Sudo Cavkic, Costas Athanasi and Julian Michael Clarke, were tried and convicted for his murder after three trials before the Supreme Court of Victoria. This case is an example of a murder conviction without a body. Allan's body has never been found.

The case is significant in Australian law in that it decided that beyond reasonable doubt should not be expressed as a percentage. In 2005 The Victorian Court of Appeal annulled the guilty verdict of the first trial in 2004 and ordered a retrial on the ground that the trial judge had failed to answer a question from a member of the jury asking if the term reasonable doubt could be expressed as a percentage.[2]

The trial judge applied a precedent of the High Court of Australia in Green's Case of 1971 [3] that judges should not explain to juries the meaning of reasonable doubt, that they should explain only in terms that beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof known to the law, or that further definition would neither be useful or proper[4]

The Victorian Court of Appeal, in a judgment by Justices Vincent, Charles and Osborn, held that the trial judge should have explained to the jury that reasonable doubt was not a percentage, unlike the position in a civil rather than a criminal case where the standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, could be expressed as a percentage of greater than 51-49.[5]

In 2006 the second trial resulted in a hung jury. In 2007 all three were again found guilty, and were sentenced by the trial judge, Justice Coldrey, to sentences that ranged from

References