R v Tarantino (No 2) - [2019] NSWSC 957

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarantino (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 957
Hearing dates: 25 July 2019
Date of orders: 25 July 2019
Decision date: 01 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Evidence of statement admitted. Evidence of assault rejected.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – evidence of alleged assault and threat – whether evidence goes towards a “consciousness of guilt” – whether evidence unfairly prejudicial
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234
R v Tarantino [2019] NSWSC 939
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Vinzent Tarantino (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett; V Garrity (Crown)
B Rigg SC; P Coady (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Watsons Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/347591
Publication restriction: Not to be published prior to the conclusion of the proceedings at first instance

Judgment

On 25 July 2019, objection was taken by Senior Counsel for the accused, Ms Rigg SC, to the Crown Prosecutor adducing evidence of an assault and a threat allegedly committed by the accused a week after the disappearance of the deceased. At the conclusion of argument I indicated my ruling but stated that reasons would be provided later. This judgment constitutes those reasons.

Background

As noted in R v Tarantino [2019] NSWSC 939, on 27 July 1998, the deceased, Ms Quanne Diec disappeared sometime after leaving her home at Seventh Street at Granville and before arriving at her school. The Crown case is that the accused kidnapped Ms Diec that morning while driving a white van with the registration PAQ 205, took her to his father’s home nearby and murdered her. The Crown alleges that that van was owned by the company Benelec Pty Ltd, which was a business associated with the Benchoam family. On the Crown case, the accused arranged to obtain that van via Daniel Soraurer who was a friend of Roger Benchoam, the son of the principal of the firm that owned the van. The accused does not dispute that he had access to that van on the morning of 27 July 1998.
One of the Crown witnesses is Geoffrey Maurer. Mr Maurer states that he met the accused sometime around 1996. In his statement dated 28 October 2015, Mr Maurer states that he was “friends with [the accused] for a time”. Mr Maurer was also a friend of Mr Soraurer who in turn was aware that the parents of Roger Benchoam had a company that owned a van.
Mr Maurer says that he was not aware that “Daniel had lent [Mr Tarantino] a van until Daniel rang me and told me he couldn’t get a hold of [Mr Tarantino] and his parents were coming back and he needed the van back”. Mr Maurer also states that he “knew Daniel and [Mr Tarantino] had become friends and I knew they were hanging out”.

Contentious…

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 R v Tarantino (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Tarantino (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 957
Case: [2019] NSWSC 957
Decision Date: 01 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal against conviction in the case of R v Tarantino (No 2). The appellant had been convicted of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one count of threatening to kill. The appellant's conviction and sentence were appealed on the basis that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of an earlier assault and threat, which the appellant claimed was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant to the charges against him. The Crown argued that the evidence was relevant to demonstrate the appellant's consciousness of guilt.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence of the earlier assault and threat was relevant to the charges against the appellant, and whether it was unfairly prejudicial. The court considered whether the evidence was relevant to the appellant's consciousness of guilt, and whether it was necessary to prove an element of the offence. The court also considered whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had.

The court found that the evidence of the earlier assault and threat was relevant to the appellant's consciousness of guilt, and was therefore admissible. The court held that the evidence was necessary to prove an element of the offence, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had. The court further found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the relevance and weight to be given to the evidence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders as the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders