CITATION: Heatley v R [2008] NSWCCA 226

HEARING DATE(S): 15 August 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 October 2008

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Barr J at 57; Price J at 58

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – Manslaughter – Robbery armed with a dangerous weapon – Principle of totality – Guideline judgment R v Henry – Discount for voluntary disclosure of offence R v Ellis – Delay in sentencing process – Special circumstances by reason of mental illness – Principles relevant when sentencing offender who is suffering from mental illness – Prior ‘criminal history’ of accused – Whether sentencing judge erred in taking into account previous verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness – Whether previous verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness capable of disclosing continuing disobedience to the law – Utilitarian value of guilty plea – Characterisation of seriousness of robbery offence – Whether robbery could be characterised as a planned offence – Whether lesser sentence warranted in law

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing) Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Engert (1996) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 314
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 160
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 287
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
O’Keefe v R (1992) 60 A Crim R 201
Irwin v R [2008] NSWCCA
R v Price [2005] NSWCCA 285
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56; (2006) 160 A Crim R 510
R v Williams [2005] NSWCCA 99
R v Johnson [2005] NSWCCA 186
R v Ibrahimi [2005] NSWCCA 43
R v House [2005] NSWCCA 88
R v Elyard [2006] NSWCCA 43
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Carlson (unreported, NSWSC, 16 October 1995)

PARTIES: Michael Allen Heatley (Applicant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2121

COUNSEL: M C Ramage QC (Applicant)
P G Ingram (Crown

SOLICITORS: Peter Murphy Solicitor (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2005/113

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Whealy J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 21 November 2006

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: NSWSC 1199

2005/2121

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
BARR J
PRICE J
THURSDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2008

HEATLEY, Michael Allen v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The Crown presented an indictment against the applicant which pleaded two counts being:

Count 1: On 27 March 2004 at Malabar he murdered Craig Anthony Behr.

2 The applicant pleaded not…

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 Heatley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Heatley v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 226
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 226
Decision Date: 2 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Heatley v The Queen, the appellant, Heatley, appealed against his sentence for manslaughter, which occurred during the course of a robbery where he was armed with a dangerous weapon. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the application of the principle of totality, the discount for voluntary disclosure, and the impact of the appellant's mental health on his sentencing. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentencing judge appropriately factored in Heatley's prior verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness, his criminal history, and the delay in the sentencing process.

The High Court examined whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the principle of totality, which requires the court to consider the overall punishment for an offender who has committed multiple offences. The court also assessed if the judge properly awarded a discount for Heatley's voluntary disclosure of the offence, and whether the delay in sentencing warranted a lesser sentence. Furthermore, the court considered the principles relevant to sentencing an offender suffering from mental illness and whether the sentencing judge erred by taking into account Heatley's previous verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court also evaluated if the robbery could be characterised as a planned offence and the impact of Heatley's criminal history on his sentencing.

The High Court found that the sentencing judge did not err in considering Heatley's previous verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental illness, as they could disclose continuing disobedience to the law. The court also determined that the robbery was not a planned offence and that the sentencing judge did not mischaracterise its seriousness. The High Court held that the sentencing judge appropriately applied the principle of totality and that the delay in the sentencing process did not warrant a lesser sentence. Ultimately, the court affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding no error in the sentencing process.

Orders