R v Tarantino (No 4) - [2019] NSWSC 1055

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarantino (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1055
Hearing dates: 14 and 15 August 2019
Date of orders: 16 August 2019
Decision date: 16 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
The accused, Vinzent Tarantino, is fit to be tried.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – fitness to be tried – Mental Health Forensic Provisions Act 1990 s 8(1) fitness inquiry – whether the accused meets the Presser criteria – whether persecutory delusions and a schizoaffective disorder render the accused unfit to stand trial – accused fit to be tried
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Mental Health Forensic Provisions Act 1990
Cases Cited: Eastman v R (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29
Kesavarajah v R [1994] HCA 41; (1994) 181 CLR 230
R v Mailes (2001) 53 NSWLR 251
R v Presser [1958] VR 45; (1958) ALR 248
R v Robertson [1968] 3 All ER 557
R v Tarantino [2019] NSWSC 939
R v Tarantino (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 957
R v Tarantino (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 985
R v Taylor (1992) 77 CCC (3d) 551
R v Tier [2001] NSWCCA 53
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Vinzent Tarantino (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett; V Garrity (Crown)
B Rigg SC; P Coady (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Watsons Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/347591
Publication restriction: Not to be published prior to the conclusion of the proceedings at first instance

Judgment

On 20 November 2016, the accused, Vinzent Tarantino, was charged with, inter alia, murdering Ms Quanne Diec on or about 27 July 1998 at Granville in New South Wales. He was refused bail. He has been held on remand ever since.
In 2018, Mr Tarantino was committed for trial. He has been arraigned in this Court on a number of occasions. On the most recent occasion that he was arraigned, namely 22 July 2019, the indictment charged a sole count of murder. Mr Tarantino pleaded not guilty. In the circumstances that I will describe, an issue has arisen as to whether he is fit to be tried.

The Voir Dire

Just prior to his arrest on 20 November 2016, Mr Tarantino attended Surry Hills Police Station and advised the police officer on duty that he wished to confess to a murder. He made various admissions around this time. Later that evening, he participated in an electronically recorded interview with a suspected person ("ERISP") in which he admitted to collecting Ms Diec in a street in Granville, driving her to his father's house nearby, eventually strangling her and disposing of her body "south...somewhere off the Princes Highway".
Three days later, Mr Tarantino was electronically recorded advising police that he later visited the site where he left Ms Diec's body and moved it to a different location. The recording showed Mr Tarantino being driven to the outskirts of southern Sydney and attempting to assist police to locate Ms Diec's…

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 Tarantino (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Tarantino (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1055
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1055
Decision Date: 16 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Crown, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the accused, Mr Tarantino. The nature of the dispute was whether Mr Tarantino was fit to be tried for the criminal charges against him. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether Mr Tarantino met the criteria set out in the case of Presser, specifically whether his persecutory delusions and schizoaffective disorder rendered him unfit to stand trial.

The court considered evidence from a number of expert witnesses, including psychiatrists and psychologists, who assessed Mr Tarantino's mental state. The court also considered the relevant statutory provisions, including section 8(1) of the Mental Health Forensic Provisions Act 1990, which provides that a person is not fit to be tried if they are unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against them, or if they are unable to conduct their own defence. The court concluded that Mr Tarantino was fit to be tried, despite his mental health issues, as he was able to understand the proceedings and conduct his own defence.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented by the expert witnesses, who concluded that Mr Tarantino was able to understand the proceedings and conduct his own defence, despite his persecutory delusions and schizoaffective disorder. The court found that Mr Tarantino's mental health issues did not prevent him from understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him, or from conducting his own defence. The court also noted that Mr Tarantino had been receiving treatment for his mental health issues, which had improved his ability to understand and participate in the trial. As a result, the court found that Mr Tarantino was fit to be tried.

Orders