R v Manna - [1999] NSWCCA 314

CITATION: R v Manna [1999] NSWCCA 314

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60374/98

HEARING DATE(S): 14 September 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 December 1999

PARTIES :

Adriano Manna (applicant)
Regina (respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Grove J at 2; Hidden J at 9

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/1103

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

COUNSEL: T. A. Game (applicant)
M. M. Cunneen (respondent)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - wounding with intent to murder - whether mental disorder related to commission of offence

ACTS CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
R v Engert (1995) 84 ACrim R 67
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
Sindoni (CCA, unreported 27 April 1993)
Cool (CCA, unreported 2 June 1994)
Merritt (CCA, unreported 26 February 1996)
Nguyen (CCA, unreported 13 June 1991)
Papalia (CCA, unreported 18 July 1996)
Azzopardi (CCA, unreported 1 October 1998)
Applebee (CCA unreported 16 July 1991)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed by a majority.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60374/98

HANDLEY JA
GROVE J
HIDDEN J

10 December 1999

REGINA v ADRIANO GUISEPPE MANNA

JUDGMENT

1     HANDLEY JA: I agree with Grove J.
2     GROVE J : I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Hidden J in draft form. His Honour has extracted a sketch of the relevant facts from the remarks of the learned sentencing judge and I would gratefully adopt them and refrain from repetition.

3     I do not share the conclusion of Hidden J that this Court should intervene to reduce the sentence and it is convenient to state my reasons by reference to his Honour’s ultimate view that the sentencing judge “fell into error in holding that the applicant’s psychiatric history provided no explanation for the crime”.

4     The relevant psychiatric evidence consisted of a report from a psychiatrist Dr Peter Klug. He saw the appellant once whilst the latter was in custody. Mental state examination was reported as disclosing no evidence of psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, an organic brain syndrome, a traumatic brain injury, confusion, delirium, intoxication, withdrawal, agitation or cognitive impairment. He was said to have provided a coherent and internally consistent history. As Hidden J has noted, the appellant gave a demonstrably false explanation for the shooting to Dr Klug and was otherwise an apparently undependable historian. There would be no error manifest in the sentencing judge so regarding him. What were collated as relevant psychiatric issues (emerging from an unreliable historian) were in summary described under six point headings. Possible convulsions as a child was the first, followed by disturbed dynamics within developmental years, a history of inability to control anger and aggression, the intensive use of anabolic steroids over one to two years (1990-91), poly drug abuse and dependence and a history of extreme irritability and violence to property. The details elaborated in relation to these points need not be recounted.

5     The summarized opinion of Dr Klug was that…

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 Manna

Details

AGLC: R v Manna [1999] NSWCCA 314
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 314
Decision Date: 10 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the respondent, Manna, who was convicted of wounding with intent to murder and was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. The Crown appealed against the sentence on the basis that the primary judge had failed to adequately consider the aggravating factor of the mental disorder of the respondent at the time the offence was committed. Manna had pleaded guilty to the charge after being found unfit to plead at the initial trial. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The central issue for the court was whether the primary judge's failure to consider the aggravating factor of Manna's mental disorder at the time of the offence warranted a sentence that reflected the full circumstances of the case. The court was required to consider whether the primary judge's approach in sentencing was in error and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in light of the aggravating factor. The appeal hinged on whether the primary judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the mental disorder of the respondent when determining the sentence.

The court found that the primary judge had indeed erred in not adequately considering the aggravating factor of Manna's mental disorder at the time of the offence. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, as the primary judge had failed to take into account the full circumstances of the case, including the mental disorder of the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors when determining a sentence, including any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the primary judge for resentencing.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remitted to the primary judge for resentencing, with directions to consider the full circumstances of the case, including the aggravating factor of the mental disorder of the respondent at the time of the offence. The court did not specify a particular sentence but directed that the resentencing take into account the full circumstances of the case, including the mitigating and aggravating factors.

Orders