A former NRL star found guilty of stabbing a church youth leader outside a Mormon charity dance in Sydney’s southwest has learnt his fate after a daring bid to overturn his sentence.
Manase Vehikite Am Fainu was sentenced last year to at least four years and three months behind bars after he was found guilty at trial of wounding with intent to cause bodily harm.
The former Manly Sea Eagles hooker denies stabbing Faamanu Levi outside the alcohol-free event organised by the Church of the Latter Day Saints at Wattle Grove in October 2019.
Fainu did not appear via AVL on Friday at the Supreme Court of NSW where the court was told justices Mark Leeming, Natalie Adams and Hament Dhanji had dismissed his appeal.
The court was told last year that Fainu, then 21-years-old, had been an up-and-coming NRL star with Manly before he was stood down by the league after charges were laid in 2019.
An eyewitness told jurors at Parramatta District Court they had seen Fainu plunge s steak knife into Mr Levi, puncturing his lungs and causing internal bleeding, during the brawl.
Fainu and at least four mates were involved in the fracas, with video displayed to the court at trial showing the group jump into the church grounds from the adjoining Coles carpark.
The 24-year-old’s barrister, Mike Smith, last month called into question whether Fainu had been in possession of the knife at the time of the stabbing or if it could have been someone else.
Crown prosecutor Emma Curran refuted that suggestion, highlighting that two witnesses had identified Fainu as being the stabber due in part to him being in a sling at the time.
The second witness gave evidence that they had seen Fainu with the knife raised and with an “angry” look on his face before the witness pushed aside his brother who was in the fracas.
In their written judgment, the justices acknowledged that Fainu had given an account of the night in which he did not participate at all in the melee, which had begun after an earlier disagreement.
“Contrary to the applicant’s principal submission, this is not a case which stood or fell on the evidence of Mr Quach (the first witness),” Acting Justice Mark Leeming wrote in his judgment.
“The ultimate question is whether, in light of all of the evidence, it was open to the jury to convict.
“Nothing in the applicant’s submissions persuades me that it was not open to the jury to accept that the Crown had proven the applicant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, relying in particular on the evidence of (the witnesses).”
