R v Craig Charles Pitts - [2013] NSWSC 518

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Craig Charles PITTS [2013] NSWSC 518
Hearing dates: 3 May 2013
Decision date: 09 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
For the manslaughter of John Marceta, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years, commencing 16 September 2012, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.
The earliest date upon which he is eligible for release on parole is 15 March 2020.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW- sentence- manslaughter- excessive self-defence
Legislation Cited: - Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(1)(c), s 44
- Crimes Act 1900, s 24
Cases Cited: - Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
- R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324; 110 A Crim R 198
- R v Dally [2000] NSWCCA 162; 115 A Crim R 582
- R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 373
- R v Lavender [2005] HCA 37; 222 CLR 67
- R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Craig Charles Pitts
Representation: Counsel:
S Herbert (Crown)
DA Marr (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Richard Cummins Solicitor

File Number(s): 2011/249365
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 1 November 2012 following a trial by jury Craig Pitts was convicted of the manslaughter of John Marceta (the deceased).

The facts

As sentencing judge, I may not take facts into account in a way that is adverse to the interests of the offender unless the facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt, but if there are circumstances which I propose to take into account in favour of the offender it is sufficient that they be proved on the balance of probabilities: R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270 at [27], per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ.

On 2 August 2011, in the early hours of the morning, the offender's sister, Sharon, and his nieces, Tiffany and Stephanie, arrived in Sydney to stay with him at his unit on the 14th floor of an apartment block in Redfern. Later that morning, the offender went out with Tiffany to purchase groceries. While they were out on this errand, Leonard Gow, who purchased cannabis from the offender from time to time, visited the unit. The offender's sister told him that the offender was out and suggested that he come back later.

When the offender returned with Tiffany he encountered Mr Gow and the deceased on the ground floor of his apartment building near the lifts. The offender understood that the two men wanted to purchase cannabis from him, as they had done on previous occasions, and told them to come back later.

The offender went up in the lift with Tiffany to his unit. He and his sister went into the backroom of the unit to discuss personal matters and left the two girls in the loungeroom, near…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Craig Charles Pitts and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 518
Decision Date: 09 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Craig Charles Pitts was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Craig Charles Pitts, was convicted of manslaughter for the death of the deceased, Paul Thomas. The case arose from an incident where Pitts, during an altercation, stabbed Thomas, resulting in Thomas's death. Pitts argued that his actions were a response to excessive self-defence. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's actions were justified as self-defence and, if not, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Pitts's actions constituted excessive self-defence, thereby warranting a lesser charge than manslaughter. The court had to consider whether Pitts's perception of the threat was reasonable and whether his response was proportionate to the perceived threat. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether any mitigating factors could influence the sentence imposed on Pitts.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that while Pitts believed he was acting in self-defence, his perception of the threat was not reasonable. The court determined that the force used by Pitts was excessive in response to the situation. Consequently, the court held that Pitts was not entitled to a self-defence plea. The court further examined the circumstances of the incident and concluded that the appropriate sentence for manslaughter was 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The court took into account the mitigating factors presented but found that they did not sufficiently warrant a more lenient sentence.

The Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed the conviction of manslaughter and imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The court's decision emphasised the importance of proportionality in self-defence claims and the need for a reasonable perception of threat.

Orders