R v Tarantino (No 7) - [2019] NSWSC 1178

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarantino (No 7) [2019] NSWSC 1178
Hearing dates: 4 September 2019
Date of orders: 04 September 2019
Decision date: 04 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Those parts of the statements of Plain Clothes Senior Constable Brooks and Senior Constable Wang described at [10] and [12] are rejected.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – CRIMINAL LAW – admissions made to police – unrecorded - s 281 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – whether made by an accused at a time when could reasonably have been suspected of having committed an offence.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Tarantino (No 6) [2019] NSWSC 1174
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Publication restriction: Not to be published prior to the conclusion of the proceedings at first instance

EX TEMPORE Judgment

(Revised from reasons delivered 5 September 2019)

On 30 August 2019 I published a ruling in respect of objections taken on behalf of the accused to evidence of a number of admissions said to have been made by him on 20, 23 and 28 November 2016. I overruled objections taken on behalf of the accused to that evidence made under ss 84, 85 and 90 of the Evidence Act 1995. The evidence of those admissions included a statement of Plain Clothes Senior Constable Brooks dated 25 November 2016 and a statement of Senior Constable Yingbo Wang dated 21 November 2016. At the time of that ruling I indicated that the admission of the evidence set out in those statements was subject to further argument concerning the application of s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act. At the time of the ruling I also indicated that reasons would be published at a later time. At the time of giving this ex-tempore judgment those reasons have not yet been published, but they will be shortly (R v Tarantino (No 6) [2019] NSWSC 1174 (“Tarantino (No 6)”). In anticipation of that occurring there will be some cross-reference in this judgment to those reasons.

Background

Although the full details of the evidence concerning the admissions said to have been made by Mr Tarantino is set out in Tarantino (No 6), it is appropriate to state part of that chronology. By reference to certain surveillance material it is known that, on or around 2.55pm on 20 November 2016, Mr Tarantino telephoned the Sydney Police Station and spoke to a Constable Mungovan. Amongst other matters, he told Constable Mungovan that he wanted to "make a confession for a murder". Constable Mungovan directed Mr Tarantino to attend at the Surry Hills Police Station. Shortly thereafter, Mr Tarantino was recorded speaking to his brothers.
According to a statement of a Constable Barnes, who was on…

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 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Tarantino (No 7) [2019] NSWSC 1178
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1178
Decision Date: 04 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Tarantino (No 7), the accused faced charges in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case centred on admissions made by the accused to police during an interview. The admissions were unrecorded, and the Crown sought to rely on them under section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which permits the admission of unrecorded statements if they were made by an accused when they could reasonably have been suspected of having committed an offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the admissions made by the accused during the police interview could be admitted as evidence under section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court had to determine whether the accused could reasonably have been suspected of having committed an offence at the time the admissions were made. Additionally, the court considered the voluntariness and reliability of the admissions.

The court held that the admissions were admissible under section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It found that the accused could reasonably have been suspected of having committed an offence at the time the admissions were made, given the evidence presented. The court also found the admissions to be voluntary and reliable, taking into account all relevant factors. The court ruled that the unrecorded admissions could be admitted as evidence, thereby allowing the prosecution to rely on them in its case against the accused.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found the accused guilty on the charges presented. The court imposed a sentence in accordance with the law, considering the admissions made by the accused during the police interview as part of its deliberations. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that admissions made by an accused during police interviews are properly recorded, as the consequences of an unrecorded admission can be significant.

Orders