Legal Research
Cases
R v Catanzariti

R v Catanzariti

Case [2014] ACTSC 109 21 February 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:		R v CATANZARITI
Medium Neutral Citation:		[2014] ACTSC 109
Hearing Date:		21 February 2014
DecisionDate:		21 February 2014
Reasons Date:		29 May 2014
Before:		Penfold J
Category:	Judgment
Catchwords:		CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleas – pleas of guilty to four sexual offences – disputed facts hearing listed – application for leave to withdraw pleas of guilty – accused denying commission of acts constituting offences – circumstances in which plea of guilty may be withdrawn – whether pleas of guilty should be accepted – effect of disputed facts hearing if accused held to guilty pleas – disputed facts hearing would need to determine whether offences committed at all – disputed facts hearing in such circumstances similar to judge-alone trial but without scope for acquittal – judge-alone trials not available for sexual offences – not a satisfactory basis for disputed facts hearing – pleas of guilty rejected – matters referred to central listing for early trial.
Legislation cited:		Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68B and Schedule 2
Cases cited:		Lim v Bateman (2001) 125 A Crim R 101 Loury v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 158 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 Norvenska v Director of Public Prosecutions(Cth) [2007] NSWCCA 158 R v Gomez [2007] ACTCA 21
Decision:		1. The accused’s pleas of guilty to the following charges are rejected: (a) sexual intercourse without consent; (b) attempted sexual intercourse without consent; (c) assault with intent to commit act of indecency; (d) assault with intent to commit act of indecency. 2. A trial of the specified charges is to be included in the Pilot Central Criminal Listing.
Parties:		The Queen (Crown) Anthony Catanzariti (Accused)
File Number(s):		SCC 208 of 2012

Introduction

On 20 July 2012, Anthony Catanzariti was charged with nine offences arising out of an incident in July 2012. He pleaded not guilty, but on 14 October 2013, after many months, many appearances, difficulties in arrangements for him to be represented, and negotiations with the prosecution, he entered pleas of guilty to eight charges, being:

(a)    one of unlawful confinement;
(b)   two of assault occasioning actual bodily harm;
(c)    one of threatening to inflict grievous bodily harm;
(d)   two of assault with intent to commit an act of indecency;
(e)    one of sexual intercourse without consent; and
(f)    one of attempted sexual intercourse without consent.

The matter was adjourned for sentence, but when the sentence hearing began on 16 December 2013, it became apparent that a disputed facts hearing would be needed before the sentencing hearing could usefully proceed. The hearing was listed for three days in April 2014.

On 3 February 2014, counsel for Mr Catanzariti indicated that his client disputed the central facts of the four sexual assault charges (Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the indictment), and wished to make an application to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The application was subsequently filed,…

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 [2014] ACTSC 109
Case: [2014] ACTSC 109
Decision Date: 21 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Catanzariti involved the accused, Catanzariti, who had entered pleas of guilty to four sexual offences. The case was heard in a relevant court where the disputed facts hearing was listed. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether to accept the pleas of guilty given by the accused, who subsequently denied the commission of the acts constituting the offences. The court also had to determine the circumstances under which a plea of guilty could be withdrawn and the implications of proceeding with a disputed facts hearing if the accused were held to their pleas of guilty.

In its reasoning, the court noted that a disputed facts hearing in this context would essentially need to determine whether the offences had been committed at all, which would be akin to a judge-alone trial but without the scope for an acquittal. The court highlighted that judge-alone trials are not available for sexual offences, making the proposed disputed facts hearing an unsatisfactory basis for proceeding with the case. Consequently, the court rejected the pleas of guilty and ordered that the matters be referred to the central listing for an early trial.

The orders of the court were that the accused's pleas of guilty to the charges of sexual intercourse without consent, attempted sexual intercourse without consent, and two counts of assault with intent to commit an act of indecency were rejected. Furthermore, the court mandated that a trial of the specified charges be included in the Pilot Central Criminal Listing for an expedited resolution.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The accused’s pleas of guilty to the following charges are rejected:

(a) sexual intercourse without consent;

(b) attempted sexual intercourse without consent;

(d) assault with intent to commit act of indecency.

2. A trial of the specified charges is to be included in the Pilot Central Criminal Listing.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Catanzariti [2014] ACTSC 109

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

R v Hura
[2022] NSWDC 95

…so long as the plea was entered in the exercise of a person’s free choice or in his or her own interests. 100.In Hura v The Queen (2001) 121 A Crim R 472, Spigelman CJ sets out a number of circumstances in which the court has set aside a conviction following a plea of guilty. These include the appellant’s lack of appreci…
Woods v The Queen
[2012] HCATrans 248

…hat the accused believes to be his interests at the time” and “where there is a genuine consciousness of guilt”. Similarly, Hulme J stated in Woods v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 108 at 116, not only must it be shown that the person entering the plea did not entertain a “genuine consciousness of guilt” but also that there…
Loury v R
[2010] NSWCCA 158 Para 1

…In Loury v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 158, the Court of Criminal Appeal (Whealy J, with whom Hodgson JA and Kirby J agreed) summarised the principles relating to withdrawal of a plea:…
Sabapathy v R
[2008] NSWCCA 82 Para 14

…nocence of the accused person, but rather the integrity of the plea itself (at 188). As Giles JA notes in the later judgment of Sabapathy v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 82 at [14], there will be no miscarriage of justice where the court acts upon a plea of guilty “entered in the exercise of a free choice in what the acc…
R v Gomez
[2007] ACTCA 21 Para 1

…such leave, being in general terms that leave should be given if holding the accused to his pleas would result in a miscarriage of justice; R v Gomez [2007] ACTCA 21 ( Gomez ). The circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice might result were identified in Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 at 157 (Dawson…
Norvenska v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
[2007] NSWCCA 158 Para 1

…Both issues were considered by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in Norvenska v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2007] NSWCCA 158 ( Norvenska ) at [21] to [27] (cited in Gomez ), as follows:…
Sauer v R
[2006] NSWCCA 81 Para 8

…at 478). Added to these circumstances are a number of further examples provided by Grove J in Sauer v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 81 at [8]. In that case questions arose regarding the quality and propriety of legal advice leading to the entering of a guilty plea ( R v Wilkes (2001) 122 A Crim R 310; R v KCH (2001) 124…
Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
[2005] NSWSC 129

…entence than [the accused] would if convicted after a plea of not guilty” (at 157). However, as Howie J made clear in Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2005) 155 A Crim R 37 at [33], there will be no miscarriage of justice in situations where a plea of guilty has been entered for the purpose of gaining some perceived advantage, despite m…
R v Parkes
[2004] NSWCCA 377 Para 49

…cter test should be applied to an application before conviction: see R v Middap (1989) 43 A Crim R 362 at 364 (CCA, Vic) and R v Parkes [2004] NSWCCA 377 at [49] (Hodgson JA). 27It is also common to note the “principles of restraint” identified by Kirby P (Grove and Newman JJ agreeing) in Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R…
Lim v Bateman
[2001] WASCA 307 Para 1

…tent that they require the plea to be unequivocal and not made in circumstances suggesting that it is not a true admission of guilt (see for instance Lim v Bateman (2001) 125 A Crim R 101 at [39] to [41]).…
R v Favero
[1999] NSWCCA 320

…e appellant pleaded guilty before the sentencing court. It will allow the appeal where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred ( R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218). 98. In determining whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred, Giles JA (with whom Hislop J and Rothman J concurred) examined the circumstances…
Maxwell v The Queen
[1996] HCA 46

…dence which contradicts that presumption. 24The circumstances in which a plea of guilty may be withdrawn were considered in Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501, but in a context where the primary issue was the right of the trial judge to reject a plea to a lesser offence than that charged. At 510-511, Dawson and M…
Maxwell v The Queen
[1995] HCATrans 326

…But there may be evidence which contradicts that presumption. 24The circumstances in which a plea of guilty may be withdrawn were considered in Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501, but in a context where the primary issue was the right of the trial judge to reject a plea to a lesser offence than that charged. At 510-511,…
Meissner v the Queen
[1995] HCA 41 Para 1

…ustice; R v Gomez [2007] ACTCA 21 ( Gomez ). The circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice might result were identified in Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 at 157 (Dawson J), as follows:…
[1923] 2 KB 400
[1923] 2 KB 400

…t be established that the appellant “did not appreciate the nature of the charge or did not intend to admit he was guilty of it”: see R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400 at 403, discussed in R v Murphy [1965] VR 187 at 188. Where the accused is legally represented, the court will usually be entitled to rely upon a plea as h…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
68B 1 mention (from Para 1)