Regina v Fiori - [2000] NSWSC 73

CITATION: REGINA v. FIORI [2000] NSWSC 73

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70028 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 16 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 February 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
FIORI, Angelo Samuel

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: M. Cunneen
Accused: P. Zahra

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Accused: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - trial - judge only - conceded lack of mental responsibility

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health Act 1900
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

CASES CITED: Gillett [1999] NSWSC 115
Gabranovic [1999] NSWSC 205
Maxwell [1999] NSWSC 281
Noyes [1999] NSWSC 397

DECISION: Not guilty by reason of mental illness

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70028 of 1999

GREG JAMES, J.

WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2000

REGINA v. ANGELO SAMUEL FIORI
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused stands charged that on 10 December 1998 at Ashbury in the State of New South Wales he did murder Sarina Fiori, his mother. To that charge he has pleaded not guilty. 2 An election for trial by judge alone signed by the accused, witnessed by his counsel and signed by the Crown Prosecutor and thus accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, has been filed in accordance with the provisions of s.32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. 3 There has been tendered to me, to ensure no question arises as to that election, a medical report from Dr. Mastroianni dated 10 February 2000, confirming no question arises as to the competence or fitness of the accused to stand his trial and to make his election. The learned Crown Prosecutor has confirmed that no such question arises. In the circumstances both parties have sought that the trial proceed before me as a judge only trial. 4 Prior to the trial coming on for hearing, and by consent, the parties had provided to me material which contained a copy of the proposed indictment, a chronology, a Crown case statement and reports by psychiatrists, including Dr. Westmore, Dr. Canaris and Dr. Mastroianni, together with very many statements by investigating police and witnesses as to the circumstances giving rise to the charge. 5 I had the opportunity to read the whole of that material and have done so. It was provided to me in this way as I was informed by both the Crown Prosecutor and defence counsel that no issues of fact or controversy over the facts arose in respect of this matter. It has now been admitted into evidence and confirms that what occurred on 10 December 1998 was an appalling tragedy which arose because, at that time, the accused was suffering from a psychosis, that is a serious mental illness which I am satisfied on the whole of the evidence was such that he should not be held mentally responsible for his actions. Those actions were not in any way provoked or occasioned by any inappropriate behaviour of his mother, or that of the family of…

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 Regina v Fiori

Details

AGLC: Regina v Fiori [2000] NSWSC 73
Case: [2000] NSWSC 73
Decision Date: 16 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Fiori involved a defendant who was on trial for an alleged criminal offence. The trial was conducted before a single judge, as the defendant had conceded that they lacked the requisite mental responsibility to participate in a jury trial. The nature of the offence and the specifics of the defendant's mental condition were not detailed in the provided text, but the central issue before the court was the defendant's capacity to stand trial and the appropriate manner in which the trial should proceed given this concession.

The court was required to determine how best to proceed with the trial in light of the defendant's concession regarding their lack of mental responsibility. This involved considering whether the defendant's concession was valid and, if so, how the trial should be conducted to ensure that the defendant's rights were protected and that justice was served. The court needed to balance the defendant's rights with the need to resolve the criminal charges efficiently and fairly.

The court concluded that the defendant's concession was valid and that proceeding with a judge alone trial was the appropriate course of action. The reasoning was based on the need to protect the defendant's rights while ensuring that the trial was conducted in a manner that was fair and just. The court found that the defendant's lack of mental responsibility meant that they could not participate in a jury trial, and therefore a trial before a judge alone was the most appropriate way to proceed. The court's decision was in line with established legal principles regarding the conduct of trials involving defendants with mental incapacity.

Orders