R v Tarantello - [2010] NSWSC 469

CITATION: R v Tarantello [2010] NSWSC 469

HEARING DATE(S): 14 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 May 2010

JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL LIST

JUDGMENT OF: Davies J

DECISION: (1) I find that the Accused Giuseppe Tarantello is unfit to be tried for the offence of the murder of Francesco Amore on 13 May 2009. (2) In accordance with s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I refer this matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. (3) Pursuant to s 14(b)(iii) of that Act, I remand the Accused in custody pending the determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 16 of that Act. (4) I direct the court registry to provide the following documentation to the Tribunal: (a) A copy of this finding. (b) A copy of any orders made for detention or bail. (c) A transcript of these proceedings. (d) A copy of any psychiatric reports tendered to the Court during these proceedings. (e) A copy of any additional reports tendered as evidence to the Court pertaining to the person’s fitness to stand trial, and (f) The Crown Case Statement.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - fitness to plead or be tried - charge of murder - Accused suffering from Treatment-resistant Schizophrenia - Accused unfit to be tried.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230
Ngatayi v R (1980) 147 CLR 18
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Robinson v R ([2008] NSWCCA 64

PARTIES: Regina
Giuseppe Tarantello

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/54795

COUNSEL: J Manuel SC (Applicant)
P Ingram (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

DAVIES J

25 MAY 2010

2009/00054795 R v TARANTELLO

JUDGMENT

1 Giuseppe Tarantello ("the Accused") is charged with 1 count of murder contrary to s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to the death of Francesco Amore ("the Deceased") on 13 May 2009 at Haberfield. The Accused is the son of the partner of the Deceased.

2 The question of fitness of the Accused to be tried having been raised, on 14 May 2010 I conducted an enquiry under the provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 as to whether the Accused was unfit to be tried for the offence of murder.

The criminal case

3 At the time of his death the Deceased resided at 44 Dudley Street, Haberfield, with his partner, Paola Tarantello, who is the mother of the Accused. The Accused then resided alone at 55 Howley Street, Five Dock, in premises that were owned by his mother.

4 Some years before the death of the Deceased, the Accused had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. At the time of the death of the Deceased, the Accused was receiving an injection of medication (Fluanoxol Depot - 40mg)…

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 [2010] NSWSC 469
Case: [2010] NSWSC 469
Decision Date: 25 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tarantello arose in the High Court of Australia, where the accused, Mr Tarantello, was charged with murder. Mr Tarantello, suffering from Treatment-resistant Schizophrenia, was deemed unfit to be tried. The case focused on whether Mr Tarantello was fit to plead or to be tried given his mental health condition. The Crown argued that Mr Tarantello was fit to be tried, while the defence maintained that his mental condition rendered him unfit.

The court was tasked with determining the legal standards for assessing the fitness to be tried of an accused person with severe mental illness. Specifically, the court had to decide whether Mr Tarantello's mental condition, characterized by Treatment-resistant Schizophrenia, was such that it precluded him from participating in the trial process in a meaningful way. The legal issues also involved the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning fitness to plead and the implications of mental illness on trial proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that Mr Tarantello was indeed unfit to be tried. The reasoning centred on the profound impact of his mental illness on his ability to understand the proceedings, to instruct counsel, and to participate in his defence. The court noted that despite the severity of the charge, the paramount consideration was the protection of the accused's rights and the fairness of the trial process. Consequently, the court concluded that Mr Tarantello's condition met the threshold for unfitness to be tried.

The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that the trial process is fair and meaningful for all participants, including those with severe mental health issues. The final orders of the court were that Mr Tarantello be deemed unfit to be tried on the charge of murder, and the trial was consequently halted.

Orders