Legal Research
Cases
R v Catanzariti

R v Catanzariti

Case [2020] ACTSC 326 4 December 2020

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Catanzariti
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 326
Hearing Dates:	14 October, 4 December 2020
Decision Date:	4 December 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to 21 months and 21 days’ imprisonment and placed
on a drug and alcohol treatment order.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated burglary by joint commission – Unlawful confinement by joint commission – Theft by joint commission – Drug and
alcohol treatment order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12A, 33, 35 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 34 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 312, s 45A
Cases Cited:	R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57 R v CN; R v SN; R v Rix [2019] ACTSC 293 R v Goodge [2019] ACTSC 297 R v XXL [2019] ACTSC 294 Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Giuseppe Pasquale Catanzariti (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
M Dyason (Crown) J de Bruin (Offender)
Solicitors
Director of Public Prosecutions ACT (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 86 of 2020
MURRELL CJ:
Introduction
The offender pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)

Count 1: Aggravated burglary by joint commission, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code).
The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years' imprisonment, a fine of
$320,000, or both.

(b)

Count 2: Unlawful confinement by joint commission, contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code).
The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment.

(c)

Count 3: Theft by joint commission, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code).
The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of
$160,000 or both.

2.	The pleas were entered on the first day of the trial, i.e. they were entered late. They were entered in the context of a very strong Crown case. The appropriate discount under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) is no more than 10 per cent.
3.	The offender was remanded in custody for six months and 10 days (from 30 December 2019 to 9 July 2020) in relation to these offences. He was granted bail on 9 July 2020.

Facts

4.	In late 2019, the complainant and her teenage son, EN, resided in Giralang. The complainant was friends with the offender's mother.
5.	In late 2019, the complainant invited the offender's sister to live at the Giralang house. The complainant stated that she did not want the offender at the house; she believed that he was a drug user.
6.	On about 19 December 2019, the offender's mother finished work and went with the offender to the complainant's house. The offender bent down to greet the complainant
with a kiss.…

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 R v Catanzariti

Details

AGLC: R v Catanzariti [2020] ACTSC 326
Case: [2020] ACTSC 326
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Giuseppe Pasquale Catanzariti was sentenced to 21 months and 21 days' imprisonment and placed on a drug and alcohol treatment order after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, unlawful confinement, and theft by joint commission. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, which involved a burglary of a residential premises during the evening hours when a child was present, a brief unlawful confinement with minimal physical restraint, and theft motivated by retribution. The subjective features, including the offender's young age, lack of prior criminal history, and apparent motivation for rehabilitation, were also considered. The court imposed concurrent sentences to ensure the offender's prior custody was accounted for while enabling the sentences to be fully suspended. The court also made a drug and alcohol treatment order, extending it to the associated offences, and imposed a good behaviour order following the treatment period.

Orders