AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 12 October 2026

Vujica v R

[2026] NSWCCA 156

HomicidePublic order & justice offences
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION JUDGE ALONE TRIAL WHERE APPLICANT CONVICTED OF MURDER DEFENCE

Citation: Vujica v R [2026] NSWCCA 156
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 12 October 2026
Judges: Payne JA, McNaughton J, Muston J

Background

The applicant was convicted of murder following a judge-alone trial before Sweeney J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The victim, a stranger, had assisted the applicant in arranging a cannabis purchase in the early hours of 15 January 2022. That transaction went badly: the applicant paid $50 and received what he described as lawn clippings, and he believed the victim bore some responsibility for the loss. After a prolonged pursuit of the victim along Popondetta Road, Blackett, and after the applicant's friend arrived by car, the applicant fatally stabbed the victim in the left side of the neck with a knife attached to his keyring lanyard.

The trial judge sentenced the applicant to 14 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period expiring 14 January 2036. A notice of appeal was not filed until approximately 16 months out of time, and an amended notice of appeal was filed on 22 April 2026. The Court granted an extension of time on the basis of a satisfactory explanation provided by the applicant's solicitor regarding Legal Aid and the process of obtaining materials.

The central issue at trial was self-defence. The applicant claimed he believed it was necessary to swing at the victim in order to protect himself, and denied intending to stab him at all. The trial judge rejected that account and found the applicant guilty of murder.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the verdict was unreasonable, because it was not open on the evidence for the trial judge to exclude the reasonable possibility that the applicant believed stabbing the victim was necessary to defend himself (the "first limb" of self-defence under section 418(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW))
  • Whether the trial judge's reasons failed to comply with section 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), which requires a judge-alone verdict to expose the reasoning process linking principles of law with the facts found

Decision

Ground 1: Unreasonable Verdict

The Court conducted an independent assessment of the whole of the evidence, including viewing the CCTV footage. It confirmed the applicable principles: a verdict is unreasonable where the only rational inference available on the evidence is not guilt, and in a circumstantial case the prosecution must exclude any inference consistent with innocence that was reasonably open (at [55]-[58]). The Court was not confined to asking whether a pathway to proof of guilt existed; it had to be satisfied that the Crown had excluded any reasonable possibility that the applicant held a genuine belief that stabbing was necessary for his own defence (at [58]).

The Court identified thirteen reasons for independently concluding that the Crown's circumstantial case was established beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant was found to have been angry about the lost $50 throughout the entire sequence of events and to have deliberately followed the victim from the McDonald's car park, despite the victim repeatedly demanding to be left alone (at [141]-[142]). A key witness, Ms Thaidy, gave compelling and largely independent evidence that the applicant was demanding his money back in an angry voice both before and after the fatal stabbing, while the victim was lying on the ground (at [143]-[148]). The Court accepted that the victim's approach with a brick was better understood as defensive conduct, given he had been pursued at length and had repeatedly asked the applicant to leave him alone (at [150]).

The Court further found that the applicant had a ready means of escape by entering his friend's vehicle and rejected the submission that he was somehow prevented from doing so (at [151]). The applicant's own friend, whose evidence was found to have been tailored in cross-examination to assist the applicant, conceded in chief that the applicant "was going onto fight mode" and "wasn't going into flight mode", and that the applicant jumped towards the victim as he swung his arm (at [100]-[101], [151]). The applicant's post-offence conduct, including fleeing the scene, burning his clothes and disposing of his bicycle, was inconsistent with any genuine belief that stabbing was necessary for self-defence (at [152]-[162]). Ground 1 was dismissed (at [167]).

Ground 2: Inadequacy of Reasons

The applicant argued that the trial judge failed to grapple with the evidence bearing on the applicant's perception immediately before the victim approached with a brick, and so failed to comply with section 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (at [168]-[172]). The Crown submitted that the applicant's central case at trial had in fact been one of accident rather than self-defence, and that counsel for the applicant had provided no detailed submissions to the trial judge on the first limb of self-defence (at [175]-[176]).

The Court held that the adequacy of a trial judge's reasons in a judge-alone trial is a question of degree and the reasons must be read as a whole and in light of the issues and submissions put to the trial judge (at [179]-[182]). Reading the verdict judgment fairly, the trial judge had been aware that the victim approached with a brick, had made detailed findings of fact about the events and the applicant's state of mind, had referred expressly to the applicant's subjective circumstances including lack of sleep and traumatic memories, and had clearly exposed the reasoning process leading to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did not believe stabbing was necessary (at [183]-[191]). The applicant's case on the first limb of self-defence had been "barely touched upon" in the closing address at trial, and the trial judge's reasons were adequate to the task (at [182]). Ground 2 was dismissed (at [192]).

Orders Made

  • Time to file the notice of appeal extended to 22 April 2026
  • Leave to appeal against conviction granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that an independent assessment of the whole evidence is required on an unreasonable verdict ground, and that in a circumstantial case the prosecution must do more than establish a pathway to guilt: it must exclude any inference consistent with innocence that was reasonably open on the evidence (at [55]-[58]).

  • Where an accused claims self-defence, post-offence conduct such as fleeing, burning clothes and disposing of items may constitute significant circumstantial evidence inconsistent with a genuine belief that the conduct was necessary for self-protection, particularly when considered alongside other evidence of the accused's state of mind (at [139], [152]-[162]).

  • A finding that an accused wanted to have a confrontation with the deceased does not of itself exclude self-defence, but is relevant to whether the accused could have believed his or her conduct was necessary for defence, as confirmed by reference to Colosimo v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (at [154]).

  • Under section 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the adequacy of a trial judge's reasons in a judge-alone trial is assessed as a question of degree, with the reasons read as a whole and in light of the issues actually identified and argued by the parties at trial (at [179]-[182]).

  • No error was established in the trial judge's reasons where the first limb of self-defence had received only minimal attention in the applicant's closing address, and where the verdict judgment expressly addressed the applicant's subjective circumstances and exposed the reasoning process linking the applicable law to the facts found (at [182]-[191]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) , ss 18, 418
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 10
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) , s 133
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) , r 3.5

Cases
- Colosimo v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2006] NSWCA 293
- Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15
- Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
- Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
- Gall v R; Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
- Macdonald v R; Obeid v R; Obeid v R [2023] NSWCCA 250; 412 ALR 167
- R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
- R v Danny Vujica [2023] NSWSC 1241
- R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13
- R v Vujica [2023] NSWSC 1532
- RJ v R [2025] NSWCCA 68
- SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
- Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117; 308 A Crim R 196
- Spiteri-Ahern v R [2022] NSWCCA 56