Legal Research
Cases
R v Panetta

R v Panetta

Case [2014] NSWSC 27 7 March 2014

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Plea of Guilty

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Panetta [2014] NSWSC 27
Hearing dates: 7 February 2014
Decision date: 07 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
Adam Panneta, for the crime of murdering Muhammed Shafique on 18 September 2008, I sentence you to a non-parole period of 12 years and nine months commencing 12 November 2010 and expiring 11 August 2023 with an additional term of 4 years and 3 months expiring 11 November 2027.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - plea of guilty - offender persuaded by partner, ex-wife of deceased, of deceased's alleged wrongdoing - offender attempts to abduct and rob deceased - offender kills deceased when deceased attempts to defend himself - multiple blows to the head with hammer - Ellis discount - police unaware deceased was murdered or any involvement of offender - offender voluntarily confesses four years later - offender of low intelligence and with personality problems - whether a specific arithmetical discount should be given for Ellis principle
Cases Cited: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2006) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39;
(2011) 244 CLR 120
Nona v The Queen [2012] NTCCA 03
R v Bolt [2001] NSWCCA 487; (2001) 126 A Crim R 284
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Lawson Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238
R v Muldrock [2012] NSWCCA 108
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Raad v R [2011] NSWCCA 138
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Plaintiff)
Adam Panetta (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
P McGrath (Crown)
I Wallach (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/377994

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 14 November 2013 the Defendant pleaded guilty to murdering Muhammed Shafique on 18 September 2008. He had been due to stand trial on 18 November 2013.

This is one of those unusual cases where the offender's commission of the offence was not suspected until a disclosure by him. The deceased's death and the offender's involvement in it only came to light when he attended Dee Why Police Station on 12 November 2010 and informed the police that he wanted to confess to the murder.

Background facts

The following facts concerning the offence and the offender's admissions are taken from a Statement of Agreed Facts.

In 1987, the deceased, Muhammed Shafique, married Sharon Shafique. In 1989, they had their first child and in 1997 their second child was born.

In 2004, Muhammed Shafique and Sharon Shafique separated. Muhammed Shafique moved out from their residence and into a unit in Herbert Street, West…

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 Panetta

Details

AGLC: R v Panetta [2014] NSWSC 27
Case: [2014] NSWSC 27
Decision Date: 07 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Panetta was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Mr. Panetta, was charged with the murder of an individual, whose identity was not revealed in the summary. The dispute involved the sentencing of Mr. Panetta, who had pleaded guilty to the charge. The circumstances surrounding the murder were that Mr. Panetta had been persuaded by his then partner, the deceased's ex-wife, of the deceased's alleged wrongdoing. The deceased was attacked by Mr. Panetta, who attempted to abduct and rob him. The deceased attempted to defend himself, leading to Mr. Panetta killing him with multiple blows to the head with a hammer.

The legal issue before the court was whether a specific arithmetical discount should be applied to the sentence for the principle of Ellis, considering Mr. Panetta's low intelligence, personality problems, and the circumstances under which the offence was committed. The principle of Ellis refers to the discount in sentence for a guilty plea, which is intended to encourage defendants to plead guilty. However, in this case, the plea of guilty was not entered until four years after the offence, and the police were unaware of the deceased's murder or Mr. Panetta's involvement. The court was required to determine if the principle of Ellis should be applied in these circumstances.

The court held that a specific arithmetical discount should not be given for the principle of Ellis in this case. The court found that the delay in entering the plea of guilty and the lack of police awareness of the offence and offender's involvement negated the benefits of the principle of Ellis. The court emphasised the need to consider the individual circumstances of each case when applying the principle of Ellis and held that the specific circumstances of this case did not warrant a discount. The court also considered Mr. Panetta's low intelligence and personality problems in determining the appropriate sentence. The court ultimately sentenced Mr. Panetta to a term of imprisonment, taking into account all relevant factors.

Orders