Regina v Mark Anthony Esposito - [2006] NSWSC 1454

CITATION: Regina v Mark Anthony Esposito [2006] NSWSC 1454
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 3 November, 23 November and 11 December 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J

DECISION: Manslaughter - Non-parole period of 4 years to date from 3 September 2004, expiring 2 September 2008. Balance of term 2 years 10 months, expiring 2 July 2011.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Manslaughter - Joint Criminal Enterprise to Assault - No evidence of offender's particpation in assault.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: RNM v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 375

PARTIES: Crown - Regina
Accused - Mark Anthony Esposito

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/301

COUNSEL: Crown - LL Lungo
Offender - KA Chapple SC

SOLICITORS: Crown - S Kavanagh
Offender - Robertson Saxton Primrose Dunn

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

LATHAM J

20 December 2006

2006/301 REGINA v MARK ANTHONY ESPOSITO
SENTENCE

1 The prisoner, Mark Esposito, was found guilty by a jury on 16 August 2006 of the offence of manslaughter of Hao Nam Tran, in the alternative to a charge of murder upon which indictment the prisoner had been tried commencing 7 August 2006.

2 The circumstances giving rise to the death of Mr Tran were substantially not in dispute at trial. On 13 August 2004, Mr Tran and his associates had gone to the prisoner’s home at Hinchinbrook and had made threats of violence towards the prisoner, who was not at home, and to the prisoner’s de facto wife in the presence of his children.

3 Whilst the motive for this offence remained obscure, it appears that Mr Tran was under the impression that the prisoner owed him money, possibly arising out of a drug debt. These events were reported to police and Mr Tran was subsequently charged with a home invasion offence.

4 On the afternoon of 16 August 2004, the prisoner and several of his associates gathered at the home of a Mr Hanchard. Included in the prisoner’s associates was one Khaled Hayek, an expert in martial arts, and known by the prisoner to be so qualified. The prisoner’s de facto wife was also in attendance. There was a discussion between Hayek and others concerning the threats made by Mr Tran towards the prisoner’s family. The evidence of the prisoner’s de facto spouse suggested that at the time of this conversation the prisoner was otherwise engaged, playing with his children in the backyard of the premises. In any event, it seems clear that Hayek indicated his intention to teach Mr Tran a lesson.

5 The prisoner either independently or in association with the plan hatched by Hayek agreed to meet Mr Tran on the evening of 16 August 2004. The prisoner told his de facto wife in the course of conversations which were the subject of listening device intercepts in the days and weeks following Mr Tran’s death, that he did…

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 Regina v Mark Anthony Esposito

Details

AGLC: Regina v Mark Anthony Esposito [2006] NSWSC 1454
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1454
Decision Date: 20 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Esposito was charged and convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of a man, during a fight instigated by a group of people, of which he was a part. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that there was no evidence to suggest he participated in the assault that resulted in the victim's death. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Esposito was part of the joint criminal enterprise that resulted in the victim's death. The court examined the evidence presented to determine if Esposito's participation in the assault was established beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court found that while Esposito was part of the group that instigated the fight, there was no evidence to suggest that he was part of the assault that caused the victim's death. The court held that for a conviction of manslaughter in the context of a joint criminal enterprise, it must be proven that the accused was part of the act that caused the death. Since the evidence did not establish Esposito's participation in the assault, the court concluded that there was an error in the original conviction. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the conviction for manslaughter was quashed.

As a result of the court's decision, Esposito's conviction for manslaughter was quashed, and he was acquitted of the charge. The court's ruling highlighted the necessity for clear evidence linking the accused to the specific act that caused the death in cases of manslaughter arising from joint criminal enterprises. This decision serves as a reminder to prosecutors and courts of the importance of establishing the precise role of each participant in such complex criminal scenarios.

Orders