REGINA v Saverio QUATTRONE [2001] NSWSC 856

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : REGINA v Saverio QUATTRONE [2001] NSWSC 856 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70044/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 24/09/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 24 September 2001

PARTIES : Regina Saverio QUATTRONE (Accused) JUDGMENT OF : Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : P.S. Dare (Crown) D.A. Bertini (Accused) SOLICITORS : SE O'Connor (Crown) Galluzzo Golotta Andriano Simone Solicitors and Barristers (Accused) CATCHWORDS : Fitness for trial Bail Act 1978 LEGISLATION CITED : Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) Solicitor General Act 1969 R v Dennison (unreported) NSWCCA 3 March 1988 CASES CITED : R v Presser (1988) VR 45 The Queen v Mifsud (unreported), 8 November 1995 DECISION : Accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, he being unfit to be tried ; The accused's present conditional bail is continued

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION

770044/01

Bell J

Monday, 24 September 2001 REGINA -v- Saviero QUATTRONE

Judgment 1 HER HONOUR: This is an enquiry pursuant to s 10 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act") into the question of whether Saverio Quattrone is unfit to be tried. It is alleged by the Crown that the accused murdered his wife Natalina Quattrone on 18 May 1999 at Bossley Park. 2 In this case, the Attorney-General has determined that an inquiry into the accused's fitness to stand trial should be conducted before the hearing of the proceedings pursuant to s 8(1) of the Act. A determination to this effect by the Acting Solicitor General dated 21 September 2001 is in evidence before me. That document recites that pursuant to s 4 of the Solicitor General Act 1969, the Attorney General has, by instrument dated 4 December 1995, delegated to the Solicitor General his power under s 8 of the Act to make such a determination. 3 The accused has elected pursuant to s 11A(1) of the Act for the question of his unfitness to be tried to be determined by judge alone. His election records that prior to making it, he sought and received advice from his barrister and solicitor. It is necessary that I be satisfied of this matter before I might proceed to conduct an inquiry without a jury. In The Queen v Mifsud (unreported), 8 November 1995, Gleeson CJ (in a judgment with which Levine and Dowd JJ agreed) observed of s 11A of the Act: "This section is concerned with the making of an election by a person whose fitness to be tried is in question because of some mental disorder. For such a person to make an effective election requires that the person understands what he or she is doing. The person must be able to understand what is involved in such an election. In addition, the judge must be satisfied that the person before making the election sought and received advice in relation to the election from a barrister or solicitor. In practice, of course, there will ordinarily be a close relationship between the question whether the person has sought and received advice in relation to the election and the question whether the person is capable of understanding and understands what is involved in the making of an election.