R v Tarantello - [2011] NSWSC 383

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarantello [2011] NSWSC 383
Hearing dates: 5 May 2011
Decision date: 06 May 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
1. Giuseppe Tarantello, upon the charge that on 13 May 2009 at Haberfield in the State of New South Wales you did murder Frank Amore, pursuant to the provisions of s 22(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I find that you are not guilty by reason of mental illness.
2. Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, that Giuseppe Tarantello be detained, in an appropriate correctional centre, or such facility or other place as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until released by due process of law.
3. Pursuant to s 39(3) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 the Registrar notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the terms of the orders made by this Court and to provide the Tribunal with copies of the psychiatric reports in evidence in these proceedings.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - judge alone trial - special hearing - defence of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Azzopardi v R [2001] HCA 25; (2001) 205 CLR 50
Mizzi v R [1960] HCA 77; (1960) 105 CLR 659
Regina v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177
R v M'Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & F 200 [8 ER 718]
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
R v Stiles (1990) 50 A Crim R 13
R v Tarantello [2010] NSWSC 469
R v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Giuseppe Tarantello
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Lynch (Crown)
Ms J Manuell, SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2009/54795

Judgment

The accused, Giuseppe Tarantello, is charged under s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 with having murdered Frank Amore on 13 May 2009 at Haberfield. On 25 May 2010, under the provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 ('the Act'), Davies J found that the accused was unfit to be tried for the offence charged (see R v Tarantello [2010] NSWSC 469). He was remanded in custody and the matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 14 of the Act for determination under s 16.

In February 2011, under s 19 of the Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions notified the Court of his intention to proceed with the charge and sought that a special hearing be fixed for that purpose. In March 2011, the Tribunal conducted a fourth review of the accused's care, treatment and detention, at a time when he was detained at the Long Bay Prison Hospital. It determined under s 46(1) of the Act that the accused should be transferred to a…

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 Tarantello

Details

AGLC: R v Tarantello [2011] NSWSC 383
Case: [2011] NSWSC 383
Decision Date: 06 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Tarantello, the case before the Court was one of murder, heard by a single judge. The accused, Tarantello, was alleged to have killed another person in circumstances that warranted a special hearing to consider his mental state at the time of the offence. The trial was conducted without a jury, given the unique nature of the defence that was to be presented.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the application of the defence of mental illness in a murder trial. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Tarantello was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, and if so, whether this illness could be considered a defence that would exempt him from criminal responsibility. The court also had to decide whether the special hearing was conducted properly and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defence of mental illness.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, found that Tarantello was indeed suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of the offence. The illness was such that it impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. The court accepted that Tarantello's mental illness was a significant factor in the commission of the crime. Consequently, the court ruled that Tarantello was not criminally responsible for the murder due to his mental illness. The court determined that the special hearing was conducted appropriately, and the evidence presented was adequate to support the defence.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that Tarantello be detained in a secure mental health facility rather than a correctional centre. This decision reflects the court's recognition of Tarantello's mental health needs and the necessity for appropriate treatment and care.

Orders