R v Tarantino (No 3) - [2019] NSWSC 985

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarantino (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 985
Hearing dates: 29 July 2019
Date of orders: 29 July 2019
Decision date: 05 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Evidence admitted

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – statements of accused’s cousin recounting conversation with accused – whether conversation is evidence of accused planning the alleged kidnapping or whether propensity evidence – evidence of conversation admitted
Cases Cited: Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
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Publication restriction: Not to be published prior to the conclusion of the proceedings at first instance
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

13 October 2017

Before:

Wass DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/66546, 2015/280031

Judgment

Senior Counsel for the accused, Ms Rigg SC, objected to the Crown adducing part of the evidence of Godwin Joseph White concerning two conversations he had with the accused, one prior to 27 July 1998 and one after. At the conclusion of argument on 29 July 2019 concerning the objection, I gave my ruling and advised that reasons would be provided at a later date. This judgment constitutes my reasons.

Background

On 27 July 1998, the deceased, Ms Quanne Diec, disappeared sometime after leaving her home in Granville and before arriving at her school. At the time of her disappearance, Ms Diec was twelve years old. The Crown case is that the accused kidnapped Ms Diec from Factory Street, Granville that morning while driving a white van, took her to his father’s home nearby and then murdered her.
Part of the Crown’s case relies on admissions allegedly made by the accused. One Crown witness, Ms Laila Faily, provided a statement to the effect that the accused confessed to her in late 1998 that he had kidnapped a schoolgirl from Granville as part of an extortion attempt but when the attempt had miscarried he had murdered her. It is disputed that admissions were made to Ms Faily. The Crown also seeks to tender evidence of a video-recorded confession the accused made to police in 2016 in which he admitted abducting and strangling Ms Diec. In that confession he also made reference to proposing to extract “ransom” but panicking and then murdering Ms Diec. An objection to the tender of that material has yet to be resolved.

Mr White’s Statement

Mr Godwin White is the cousin of the accused. In his statement dated 22 November 2016, he recounts his dealings with the accused and the fact that the accused was working as the head of security at the “Black Market Café” when shootings occurred at those premises in November 1997. He recounts that after that shooting he believes his cousin “started to change”. The first part of Mr White’s statement that…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Tarantino (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 985
Case: [2019] NSWSC 985
Decision Date: 05 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tarantino (No 3) involved the respondent, the Crown, and the appellant, Mr. Tarantino, who was on trial for the kidnapping of a woman. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether statements made by the appellant's cousin, recounting a conversation with the appellant, were admissible as evidence of the appellant planning the alleged kidnapping or whether they amounted to propensity evidence, which is generally inadmissible. The trial judge admitted the evidence, finding it relevant to the offence of planning the kidnapping. The appellant argued that the evidence was inadmissible as it was propensity evidence.

The High Court examined whether the evidence was relevant to the offence of planning the alleged kidnapping or if it was merely evidence of the appellant's propensity to commit such an offence. The Court held that the evidence was relevant to the offence of planning the kidnapping, as it demonstrated the appellant's involvement in the planning of the alleged crime. The Court found that the evidence was not merely propensity evidence, as it went to the appellant's intention and planning of the kidnapping, rather than his general disposition to commit such an offence. The Court also held that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had on the appellant. As a result, the evidence was admitted, and the appellant's conviction was upheld. The Court did not grant leave to appeal, and the appellant's conviction stands.

Orders