AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 December 2025

Chatimba v R

[2025] NSWCCA 225

Assault & violenceHomicide

Citation: Chatimba v R [2025] NSWCCA 225
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 19 December 2025
Judges: Free JA; N Adams J; Sweeney J

Background

The applicant was convicted by jury of murder following a fatal stabbing that occurred on 11 August 2018 near the home of his former partner. The Crown's case was that the applicant inflicted two fatal stab wounds on the deceased during an altercation after the deceased arrived at the property. The deceased and the applicant had previously worked together and knew each other personally.

The altercation arose from a confrontation involving the applicant's former partner. The applicant had become angry upon learning that the deceased was calling her, and a phone argument escalated to an in-person confrontation. Eyewitness evidence described the applicant as the aggressor, and he was seen returning inside with a bloodied knife after the altercation. He told the former partner: "I did that for you," and "I killed somebody for you."

The applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal promptly after sentencing but did not file a formal Notice of Appeal until approximately four years later. He required both an extension of time and leave to appeal.

  • Whether the jury's guilty verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported by the evidence
  • Whether the Crown had negatived beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant acted in self-defence when he stabbed the deceased
  • Whether an extension of time should be granted to permit the appeal to proceed, given the four-year delay

Decision

On the unreasonable verdict ground, the Court applied the test from M v The Queen (1994), which requires the appellate court to make its own independent assessment of the evidence, while respecting the jury's advantage in having seen and heard the witnesses, and to determine whether the verdict was open on the whole of the evidence. The Court found that the applicant's account was inconsistent with much, if not all, of the evidence in the Crown case.

The eyewitness evidence was described as credible and persuasive, and was supported by other evidence adduced by the Crown. The absence of direct evidence covering every moment of the altercation, and the expert evidence about the deceased's injuries, were not sufficient to raise a reasonable hypothesis of self-defence that the jury was bound to accept. The evidence was capable of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did not stab the deceased in self-defence, and the verdict was open to the jury on the whole of the evidence.

On the time extension, Sweeney J was critical of the four-year delay between the filing of the Notice of Intention to Appeal and the Notice of Appeal. Her Honour observed that the trial was neither complex nor lengthy, and that such delays harm the applicant, the community, and particularly the family of the deceased. However, in the interests of finality, the Court extended time, granted leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

Orders Made

  • Time for filing the Notice of Appeal extended to 27 June 2025
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that an unreasonable verdict ground requires the appellate court to assess independently whether the verdict was open on the whole of the evidence, following M v The Queen (1994), while giving appropriate weight to the jury's assessment of witness credibility.
  • A self-defence hypothesis will not automatically succeed simply because parts of an altercation were not directly observed; the court's focus is on whether the totality of evidence was capable of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt that self-defence did not apply.
  • Substantial, unexplained delays in prosecuting a criminal appeal are treated seriously: a four-year delay between a notice of intention to appeal and a formal notice of appeal was characterised as unacceptable, particularly where the trial was short and uncomplicated.
  • The principle of finality in criminal proceedings, discussed in Kentwell v The Queen (2014), weighs against extending time for stale appeals, but the court may nonetheless grant an extension where it serves the overall interests of justice, including resolving the matter conclusively.
  • Adverse impacts on the family of a deceased victim, including ongoing trauma, are expressly recognised as relevant considerations when a court weighs whether to permit a late appeal to proceed.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Cases:
- M v The Queen (1994) 191 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
- Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
- Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66

Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the judgment.