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

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

By the time of the later passages of questioning objected to, the accused could reasonably have been suspected by an investigating official of having committed murder, thus engaging s 281. As no tape recording or reasonable excuse was evidenced, those parts are inadmissible. The opening statement was not sufficiently detailed to engage s 281 and is admissible.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Vinzent Tarantino
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Objections to parts of the police statements upheld in part; those parts described at [10] and [12] are rejected as inadmissible; opening statement admissible.
Legal Topics
Admissions to Police, Unrecorded Confessions, Admissibility of Evidence, Section 281 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Criminal Law Evidence Admissions to Police Unrecorded Confessions Admissibility of Evidence Section 281 Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Vinzent Tarantino

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 281 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 applies to the admissions made by the accused to police and whether those admissions are admissible in the absence of a tape recording

Ratio Decidendi

By the time of the later passages of questioning objected to, the accused could reasonably have been suspected by an investigating official of having committed murder, thus engaging s 281. As no tape recording or reasonable excuse was evidenced, those parts are inadmissible. The opening statement was not sufficiently detailed to engage s 281 and is admissible.

Court Disposition

Objections to parts of the police statements upheld in part; those parts described at [10] and [12] are rejected as inadmissible; opening statement admissible.

Orders

  • Those parts of the statements of Plain Clothes Senior Constable Brooks and Senior Constable Wang described at [10] and [12] are rejected.