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

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

The evidence of the accused's alleged threats to Mr Maurer was capable of establishing consciousness of guilt and had significant probative value because, in context, the only apparent subject of the threats was the accused's use of the van during the relevant period. However, evidence of the alleged assaults on Mr Maurer and Mr Benchoam created unfair prejudice because responding to it could require the accused to adduce evidence of other random violent acts. Separating the threat evidence from the assault evidence removed the identified prejudice while preserving probative evidence of the statements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Evidence Ruling / Objection to Crown Adducing Evidence of an Alleged Assault and Threat
Outcome
Evidence of statement admitted. Evidence of assault rejected.
Legal Topics
['consciousness of Guilt' 'threat Evidence' 'assault Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 's 137 Evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['consciousness of Guilt' 'threat Evidence' 'assault Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 's 137 Evidence Act 1995']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Evidence Ruling / Objection to Crown Adducing Evidence of an Alleged Assault and Threat

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of an alleged assault and threat by the accused was capable of establishing a consciousness of guilt.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the accused's alleged threats to Mr Maurer was capable of establishing consciousness of guilt and had significant probative value because, in context, the only apparent subject of the threats was the accused's use of the van during the relevant period. However, evidence of the alleged assaults on Mr Maurer and Mr Benchoam created unfair prejudice because responding to it could require the accused to adduce evidence of other random violent acts. Separating the threat evidence from the assault evidence removed the identified prejudice while preserving probative evidence of the statements.

Court Disposition

Evidence of statement admitted. Evidence of assault rejected.

Orders

  • ['Evidence of the statements alleged to have been made by the accused to Mr Maurer admitted.' 'Evidence of the assault upon Mr Maurer rejected.' 'Evidence of the assault upon Mr Benchoam rejected.']