R v Catanzariti - [2006] VSC 162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1433 of 2005

THE QUEEN

FRANK CATANZARITI

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 May 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 May 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Catanzariti
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 162

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Cannabis cultivation in a commercial quantity and other offences – Provision of advice and assistance – no direct financial interest – Pleas of guilty, undertaking to give evidence against co-offenders and other mitigating factors – Sentence of two years and four months, wholly suspended for three years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Randles	Randles, Cooper & Co

HIS HONOUR:

Frank Catanzariti. You have pleaded guilty to three charges. The first is of the cultivation at Keilor Park of a commercial quantity of cannabis between 1 August and 12 November 2003. The second is of the theft at Keilor Park of electricity between those same dates. The third is of the cultivation at Glenroy of cannabis between 1 and 12 November 2003. The two counts at Keilor Park relate to the cultivation of cannabis at the home of Craig Galas. The count at Glenroy relates to the cultivation of cannabis at the home of Ismail Muhaidat.

You were arraigned and pleaded guilty on 2 May 2005. Your sentencing has been delayed. In May 2005, Galas and Muhaidat had been charged with the murder of Robert D’Amico and with a number of drug and other offences relating to events in late 2003. At the trial of the murder charge, Galas was found guilty of murder, and Muhaidat was found guilty of manslaughter. After those verdicts, both men indicated that they proposed to plead guilty to the offences linked to the cultivation of cannabis in their homes. You had been prepared to give evidence against them, if required, as to those offences. You had no part in the events giving rise to the murder of Robert D’Amico. For reasons that I need not detail here, the pleas in mitigation of Galas and Muhaidat were not heard until December, and they are to be sentenced later today.

In late 2003, your then use of cannabis led to your becoming an associate of each of Galas and Muhaidat. That association made you a person of interest to the police who were investigating the shooting of Robert D’Amico. In late October and early November 2003, a number of conversations that you had with Craig Galas were recorded. It was apparent from those conversations that you were working with him on the cultivation of a number of cannabis plants. On 12 November 2003, you were interviewed by the police as to your association with Galas and Muhaidat and as to the cultivation of cannabis. At that time, you declined to answer most questions.

On 14 April 2005, you provided the police with…

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 [2006] VSC 162
Case: [2006] VSC 162
Decision Date: 1 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Catanzariti, who faced charges related to the cultivation of cannabis in a commercial quantity, as well as other associated offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant pleaded guilty to several charges. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account various mitigating factors and the defendant's cooperation in providing evidence against co-offenders.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the appropriate sentencing framework for the offences committed, the impact of the defendant's plea of guilty and his willingness to testify against his co-offenders, and the relevance of the defendant's lack of direct financial interest in the cultivation operation. The court also had to consider the defendant's provision of advice and assistance in the investigation and prosecution of the co-offenders, as well as other mitigating factors presented in his behalf.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant assistance provided by the defendant in the investigation and prosecution of his co-offenders. The court found that the defendant's plea of guilty and his willingness to testify were substantial mitigating factors. Additionally, the court noted that the defendant did not have a direct financial interest in the cultivation operation, which was a further mitigating consideration. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court determined that a sentence of two years and four months imprisonment was appropriate, but it was wholly suspended for a period of three years. This outcome reflected the court's consideration of the mitigating factors and the defendant's cooperation with law enforcement.

Orders