R v Paul Edwin RENETE [2006] NSWSC 166

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Paul Edwin RENETE [2006] NSWSC 166

HEARING DATE(S) : 13/03/06

JUDGMENT DATE : 22 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Newman AJ

DECISION : Refer para 24

CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - Accused found not guilty on the ground of mental illness

LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED : R v Mc Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358

PARTIES : REGINA Paul Edwin RENETE

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1624/05

COUNSEL : Mr P. Barnett (Crown) Ms M. Zahra (Solicitor) (Accused)

SOLICITORS : Mr G. Whitaker (Crown) Legal Aid Commission (Accused)

- 4 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ACTING JUSTICE NEWMAN

22 March 2006

1624/05 REGINA v Paul Edwin RENETE

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Paul Edwin Renete has been indicted for the murder of Tracy Hollis at Erina in this State on or about the 19th February 2005. To that charge he has pleaded not guilty and has raised a defence of mental illness. 2 Pursuant to section 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act he has elected to be tried by a judge alone and the Crown has consented to that election. 3 Additionally, he has pursuant to section 184 of the Evidence Act 1995 admitted in writing that he committed the act which caused the death of Tracy Hollis. In open court he orally confirmed that admission. 4 It is thus my task to find the facts of the matter and to determine first, if the Crown has established beyond reasonable doubt that the admitted act of the accused in killing Tracy Hollis falls within the ambit of the crime of murder. Second, if so, has the accused established on a balance of probabilities his defence of mental illness within the framework of the Mc Naghten rules. 5 My task in finding the facts relating to the killing of Tracy Hollis has been assisted by the tender of the Crown of a statement of facts the contents of which were not challenged by Ms Zahra, solicitor who appeared for the accused. Since reserving my decision I have read the case statements and materials tendered by the Crown as its case. Having done so, I find the Crown case statement is an accurate account of the facts relating to the killing of Tracy Hollis by the accused and I have adopted the bulk of that statement as my findings of fact. I thus find as follows:- At the time of death of Tracy Hollis, the accused was living at her residence at 9/2 Ernest Street Erina, with her son, Daniel Hourihan. The accused was a friend of the deceased's son. At the time of the death of the deceased, the accused had been occupying a spare bedroom in the house, as he was destitute.