Pitts v R - [2014] NSWCCA 244

This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Pitts v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 244

Hearing Date(s): 29 October 2014

Decision Date: 29 October 2014

Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Davies J at [41]

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

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - manslaughter - excessive self-defence - no real threat of violence - degree to which response was unreasonable was quite extreme - sentence not unreasonable or plainly unjust

Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Hoerler [2004] NSWCCA 184; 147 A Crim R 520
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
The Queen v Lavender [2005] HCA 37; 222 CLR 67

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Craig Charles Pitts (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
Mr T Gartelmann (Applicant)
Ms N Adams SC with Ms S Palaniappan (Crown)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyer
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2011/249365

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Adamson J

- Date of Decision: 09 May 2013

- Citation: [2013] NSWSC 518

- Court File Number(s): 2011/249365

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: Craig Charles Pitts (the applicant) applies for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by Adamson J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 9 May 2013. The applicant had been tried before a jury on a charge of murder but the jury returned a verdict of guilty to manslaughter. Adamson J imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months with effect from 16 September 2012.
The Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal was filed a short period out of time. At the outset of the hearing today the Crown indicated it did not oppose an extension of time being granted. Accordingly it was.
The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust; in other words it is manifestly excessive. The ground of appeal is supported by submissions that the offence was of relatively low objective seriousness and there were favourable findings as to certain subjective features of the applicant. The contention of manifest excess is said to be confirmed by an analysis of sentences imposed in other cases.

Facts

There was no dispute about the findings of fact made by Adamson J. The following summary is derived from her Honour's remarks on sentence.
The applicant lived in a unit on the fourteenth floor of an apartment block 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 Pitts v R

Details

AGLC: Pitts v R [2014] NSWCCA 244
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 244
Decision Date: 29 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought before the court by the respondent, who sought to challenge the sentence imposed for manslaughter. The case involved an incident where the appellant had killed another person during an altercation. The appellant claimed that the killing was in response to an act of excessive self-defence, as he believed the victim posed a real threat of violence. The appellant maintained that his actions were a proportionate response to the perceived threat. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate in the circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable or plainly unjust. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the appellant's actions were a proportionate response to the perceived threat of violence from the victim. The court was also required to assess the degree to which the appellant's response was unreasonable, and whether it was so extreme as to warrant a more severe sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the lower court had properly exercised its discretion in imposing the sentence.

The court found that the appellant's actions were indeed a response to a perceived threat of violence, albeit not an immediate one. The court acknowledged that the appellant's belief in the threat was genuine, but also noted that the degree to which his response was unreasonable was quite extreme. The court held that the lower court had exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence, and that it was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The court emphasised that the appellant's actions were not proportionate to the perceived threat, and that a more severe sentence may have been warranted. However, the court ultimately found that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders