Pitt v R - [2014] NSWCCA 70

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pitt v R [2014] NSWCCA 70
Hearing dates: 23 April 2014
Decision date: 07 May 2014
Before: Simpson J at [1]; Hall J at [71];Harrison J at [72]
Decision:
(i) leave to appeal granted;
(ii) appeal allowed, sentence quashed;
(iii) in lieu thereof, the applicant be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing on 17 January 2011 and expiring on 16 January 2014, with a balance of term of 2 years, expiring on 16 January 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - manslaughter - plea of guilty - substantial impairment by abnormality of mind - s 23A Crimes Act 1900 - whether sentence manifestly excessive - error found - whether error in failure to find special circumstances or in failure to vary statutory ratio to reflect special circumstances - error found - leave to appeal granted - appeal allowed - sentence quashed - applicant re-sentenced
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(3)(c), s 44(2)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
R v Chen [2012] NSWSC 1000
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hollaway [2013] NSWSC 218
R v Terrence David Kain [2013] NSWSC 638
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leonard Arthur Pitt (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
E Ozen (Applicant)
V Lydiard (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Services (NSW/Act) Ltd (Applicant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/15850
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9111

Citation:

R v Pitt [2012] NSWSC 1549

Date of Decision:

2012-12-14 00:00:00

Before:

Latham J

File Number(s):

2011/15850

Judgment

SIMPSON J: On 17 January 2011 the applicant was arrested and charged with the murder of Jamie Collins earlier that day. On 26 November 2012, he entered a plea of guilty to an alternative charge of manslaughter. The Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. It accepted the plea on the basis that the applicant suffered a substantial impairment in his capacity to understand events, or to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or to control himself due to an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, at the time of the offence, within the meaning of s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence of manslaughter is subject to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years.

On 14 December 2012 Latham J sentenced the applicant. She imposed a term of imprisonment of 8 years, commencing on 17 January 2011, with a non-parole period of 6 years which will expire on 16 January 2017.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence. He contends that it is, in the circumstances, manifestly excessive. He also asserts error in…

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 Pitt v R

Details

AGLC: Pitt v R [2014] NSWCCA 70
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 70
Decision Date: 07 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Pitt, appealed against his sentence for manslaughter, having pleaded guilty. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal. The primary issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. This involved considering whether there was an error in the trial judge's failure to find special circumstances or in the failure to vary the statutory ratio to reflect these special circumstances. The Court needed to determine whether the trial judge's failure to consider these factors constituted a significant error that warranted intervention.

The Court examined the trial judge's approach to sentencing and found that there was indeed an error. The trial judge did not adequately consider the special circumstances that were relevant to the case. Specifically, the trial judge did not sufficiently take into account the substantial impairment by abnormality of mind that the applicant suffered from. This was a crucial factor that should have been weighed in the sentencing process, particularly under section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900. The Court held that the trial judge's failure to properly consider this mitigating factor led to an error that affected the fairness and proportionality of the sentence. Consequently, the Court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the error was significant enough to warrant a new sentencing hearing.

The Court quashed the original sentence and allowed the appeal. The applicant was re-sentenced by the Court, which ensured that all relevant special circumstances were properly considered. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive and fair sentencing processes, particularly when mitigating factors such as substantial impairment by abnormality of mind are present. The final orders of the Court included the quashing of the original sentence and the re-sentencing of the applicant, ensuring that the sentence reflected a fair and balanced consideration of all relevant factors.

Orders