Legal Research
Cases
Catley v R

Catley v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 249 31 October 2014

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Substantial Impairment

Manslaughter

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Catley v R [2014] NSWCCA 249
Hearing dates: 7 May 2014
Decision date: 31 October 2014
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Johnson J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - manslaughter as a result of substantial impairment - related offences of killing animal with intent to inflict severe pain - judge did not disregard effect of depression on impairment - impairment not significantly greater than required for finding of substantial impairment - asserted error in disregarding mental condition in assessing moral culpability not established - general deterrence a relevant consideration in substantial impairment manslaughter - finding not required in this case that less weight should be given to general deterrence - no evidence that mental condition would make custody more onerous - sentences and degree of accumulation not manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Heatley v R [2008] NSWCCA 226
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Pitt v R [2014] NSWCCA 70
R v Antaky [2007] NSWSC 1047
R v Barton (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 28 July 1995, unrep)
R v Chayna (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 8 June 1993, unrep)
R v Cooper (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 24 February 1998, unrep)
R v Keceski (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 10 August 1993, unrep)
R v Troja (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 16 July 1991, unrep)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Craig Catley (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms R Burgess (Applicant)
Ms N Noman SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2009/230658
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9111

Date of Decision:

2011-11-18 00:00:00

Before:

Barr AJ

File Number(s):

2009/230658

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by R A Hulme J and with his Honour's reasons.

JOHNSON J: I agree with R A Hulme J.

R A HULME J: Craig Daniel Catley (the applicant) was found guilty by a jury on 8 November 2011 of the manslaughter of his mother, Rhonda Catley, and of two offences of killing an animal with intent to inflict severe pain (s 530(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) (the animal cruelty offences).

He was sentenced by Barr AJ on 18 November 2011. For the animal cruelty offences, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years, he received fixed term sentences of 2 years, to be served concurrently and dating from 17 October 2009. For the offence of manslaughter, for which the maximum penalty is 25 years, he received a sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 8 years, dating from 17 October 2010.

As a result of the 1 year partial accumulation of the manslaughter sentence the total effective…

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 Catley v R

Details

AGLC: Catley v R [2014] NSWCCA 249
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 249
Decision Date: 31 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Catley v R, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter following the death of his partner and the unlawful killing of their dog. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal against the sentence imposed by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in not disregarding the effect of the appellant's depression when assessing the degree of his substantial impairment and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider the impact of his depression on his substantial impairment, and thus erred in not disregarding the effect of his depression in assessing his moral culpability. The Court held that the trial judge did not err in this regard, as the impairment was not significantly greater than required for a finding of substantial impairment. The Court also determined that while general deterrence was a relevant consideration in cases of substantial impairment manslaughter, there was no requirement to find that less weight should be given to general deterrence in such cases. Additionally, the Court found that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the appellant's mental condition would make custody more onerous.

The Court concluded that the sentences and degree of accumulation were not manifestly excessive, and therefore dismissed the appeal against sentence. The appellant's conviction for manslaughter and the sentence imposed by the Queensland Court of Appeal were affirmed. The Court also held that the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's substantial impairment, as well as the general deterrence, was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders