R v Guiseppina Esposito - [2000] NSWSC 284

CITATION: R v Guiseppina ESPOSITO [2000] NSWSC 284

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70093/95

HEARING DATE(S): 23/08/1999 & 25/02/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 23 March 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Guiseppina Esposito (Prisoner)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : W. Norman (Crown)
I. McClintock (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
David H Cohen & Co. (Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.

LEGISLATION CITED: Sentencing Act 1989, s 5(2)

CASES CITED: R v Maguire (CCA - 30 August 1995);
R v Bryant [1999] NSWCCA 181;
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310.

DECISION: See para 21.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
DUNFORD J
THURSDAY, 23 MARCH 2000
70093/95 - R v Guiseppina ESPOSITO
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: When arraigned on 23 August 1999 the prisoner, Guiseppina Esposito, pleaded not guilty to the murder of Maxwell Andrews at Kings Cross on 24 April 1995 but guilty to the alternative charge of manslaughter, which plea the Crown accepted in full settlement of the indictment. This arraignment followed an earlier trial where the jury found the prisoner guilty of murder but the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed an appeal by her and ordered a new trial. 2 Before me an agreed statement of facts was tendered which showed the following: On the afternoon of 24 April 1995 the prisoner went to Liverpool to collect her prescribed dose of methadone. She later went to Cabramatta where she obtained from a pharmacy 200 tablets of Rivotril containing the drug Clonazepam. At Cabramatta she met two men, Paul Ross and George Russell, who had gone to Cabramatta to buy heroin. All three travelled together by train to Kings Cross. En route she gave Ross some Rivotril tablets which he consumed. All three also drank some beer. 3 They left the train at Kings Cross station and went to The Crest Hotel nearby where the prisoner was seen speaking to various male patrons in a bar, one of whom was the deceased, Mr Andrews. No witness heard any of this conversation. After a short time Mr Andrews left the hotel and walked down William Street alone. The prisoner followed just behind him while Ross and Russell were a little way behind her. At the corner of William and Brougham Streets the prisoner was seen by Ross to put her right arm over Mr Andrews' shoulder and there was a brief struggle. Mr Andrews turned around, walked a short distance and collapsed with blood coming from a wound in his chest. Ross and Russell then left the scene and returned to the Kings Cross area, and later that evening at Kings Cross the prisoner sold two gold rings, apparently belonging to the deceased, to another person. The prisoner and Ross then bought some heroin and injected themselves. Ross apparently overdosed but was treated and recovered later that night. 4 On 26 April the police spoke to the prisoner. In her bag they found a knife and some…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Guiseppina Esposito and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 284
Decision Date: 23 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Guiseppina Esposito, the appellant stood before the court facing charges related to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The case was heard and determined by the court of appeal, with the facts of the matter centering around the death of a young child who was found deceased after being left in the care of the appellant. The circumstances leading to the child's death were contested, with the prosecution asserting that the appellant had acted negligently and recklessly, resulting in the tragic outcome. The appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court was the primary focus of the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the offence of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The appeal questioned whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive, inadequate, or otherwise erroneous. Key considerations included the gravity of the offence, the appellant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter. The court was required to examine the evidence and arguments presented to determine whether the sentence should be upheld, varied, or quashed in favour of an alternative penalty.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the principles of sentencing relevant to the offence. The court found that the trial judge had properly considered the circumstances of the case, including the appellant's role in the death of the child. The court determined that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and that there were no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's discretion. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of manslaughter offences while also taking into account the individual circumstances of each case.

Orders