DPP v Coelho, Tabbit & SPA - [2007] VSC 137

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1580 of 2005

DPP

TIAGO COELHO, ABDUL KADER TABBIT & SPA

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 - 31 January, 1- 2, 5 – 9, 12 – 16, 19 – 23, 26 February, 5 – 9, 13 – 16, 19 – 23 March, 11 – 13, 16 – 20, 23 – 24, 26 – 27, 30 April 2007
DATE OF RULING:	11 May 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Coelho, Tabbit & SPA
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 137

---

Criminal Law – Rulings – Separate trials – Admissibility of admissions in a police record of interview – Directed acquittal – Manslaughter as an alternative

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman S.C. with Mr T. Walsh	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Coelho	Mr F. Andrighetto	Arch Sutton
For the Accused Tabbit	Mr B. Schultz	Middletons
For the Accused SPA	Mr R. Richter Q.C. with Mr J. Singh	Anthony Isaacs

HIS HONOUR:

A series of events culminated in the death of Greg Harrison at Dandenong on 13 May 2005. Those events led to charges being laid against seven young males. Those charges led to my presiding over three jury trials in early 2007 as to three of the seven. Before and during those trials, I made a number of rulings. I said at the time that I ruled that I would provide my reasons later. These are the reasons.

On 13 May 2005, a pre-engagement celebration was organised at a bar called Zeine’s. Zeine’s is located on the south-west side of the Princes Highway, on the north-western or Melbourne side of Dandenong. Almost opposite Zeine’s is Henty Street. Off Henty Street is McFarlane Crescent which runs through to Cleeland Street. Many flats and a Coles supermarket are located within the block bordered by the Princes Highway, Henty Street, McFarlane Crescent and Cleeland Street. On the City of Dandenong side of Zeine’s is Robinson Street. Almost opposite Robinson Street is a set of flats at 50 Princes Highway, which I will refer to after this as the first flats, to distinguish them from a second set of flats located at 6 McFarlane Crescent. Adjacent to flat 9 in the second flats is a garden maintained by the owner of flat 9. Two key events took place in the garden.

The pre-engagement celebration was for Abdul Tabbit, born in April 1985. A group of seven friends arrived together at Zeine’s some time after 10 p.m. to join the celebrations. Listed in order of age, the seven were: Justin King born in March 1985; George Pantazopoulos, born in October 1985; Jeremy Vigliarolo, born in March 1986; Tiago Coelho born in July 1986, Clinton Gottinger, born in March 1987; Jamie Ngyoune, born in September 1987; and SPA, born in 1988. At the time, the oldest, King, was aged 20 and the youngest, SPA was aged 16. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Coelho, Tabbit & SPA

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Coelho, Tabbit and SPA [2007] VSC 137
Case: [2007] VSC 137
Decision Date: 11 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Coelho, Tabbit and SPA, the defendants were prosecuted for their involvement in the death of a person. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The nature of the dispute involved the admissibility of admissions made by one defendant, which were recorded in a police interview, and the potential for a directed acquittal on a charge of manslaughter as an alternative to murder.

The legal issues before the court were whether the admissions made by one defendant, Coelho, were admissible in the trial of the other defendants, Tabbit and SPA, and whether a directed acquittal on the charge of manslaughter was appropriate. The court had to consider the rules of evidence, specifically the hearsay rule, and the circumstances under which admissions made by one defendant could be used against co-defendants. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for manslaughter as an alternative to murder.

The court found that the admissions made by Coelho during his police interview were not admissible against Tabbit and SPA as they did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court also held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for manslaughter as an alternative to murder. As a result, the court directed an acquittal on the charge of manslaughter for all defendants. The court's reasoning was based on the principle that admissions made by a co-defendant are generally inadmissible unless they fall within a recognised exception, and that the prosecution must prove the lesser offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The court ordered a directed acquittal on the charge of manslaughter for all defendants, Coelho, Tabbit, and SPA. The verdict on the charge of murder remained to be determined by the jury.

Orders