R v Pattalis - [2012] NSWDC 10

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pattalis [2012] NSWDC 10
Hearing dates: 2 November 2012
Decision date: 02 November 2012
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of one year and a head sentence of 2 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Assault occasion actual bodily harm - Conditional offer to plead guilty
Cases Cited: Blackwell v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 93; 208 A Crim 5 392
De Simoni v R (1981) 147 CLR 383
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Alex Costa Pattalis
Representation: Mr G Corr - The Crown
Mr P Lowe - The Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2011/75570

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Alex Pattalis appears for sentence after having pleaded guilty to an offence of assault occasion actual bodily harm. The circumstances in which the plea was entered will require a little bit of examination later on in these remarks on sentence.

The offence occurred when, for reasons which have not been identified, the offender decided to hit the victim, a man by the name of Christian Thompson, with a solid punch whilst they were both waiting out the front of a nightclub. No explanation has been offered as to why Mr Pattalis would have done that. I simply do not know whether he was out for a violent night, whether there was some level of provocation or what. What I do know is that nothing could possibly justify what Mr Pattalis did. It was, I repeat, a single but forceful punch which caused Mr Thompson to fall to the ground. Mr Pattalis left the vicinity soon afterwards and people came to assist Mr Thompson. He was taken to hospital after there were significant concerns raised about his condition by those who saw him after he had been punched. The injuries occasioned to Mr Thompson were significant. They are set out in a victim impact statement. Nor is it the case that he has made a full recovery. For example, he has physical deformities. He has pain when flying when the aircraft he is in descends to land and he has of course the obvious and almost inevitable emotional consequences that flow from being the victim of apparently random violence such as occurred to him.

The offender was brought up by his father after his mother apparently abandoned the relationship she had with his father. He left school and began working as a labourer. He was quite a good rugby league player apparently and was employed in that occupation for a number of years but had to retire following an injury. He is now working part time with his sister who runs a fitness centre. He is apparently good at his job and a letter from his sister was tendered to me today. As well as that he looks after his grandmother following the death of his grandfather a short while ago. He has used alcohol in the past but not drugs. He told a…

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 Pattalis

Details

AGLC: R v Pattalis [2012] NSWDC 10
Case: [2012] NSWDC 10
Decision Date: 02 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pattalis, the appellant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm following an incident involving the victim. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the circumstances of the assault and the conditional offer to plead guilty made during the proceedings.

The court was required to weigh several factors in determining the sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's early guilty plea and the potential for rehabilitation. The court noted that the assault had caused significant physical and emotional harm to the victim, but also acknowledged the appellant's expression of remorse and the absence of a prior criminal record.

After considering these factors, the court found that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to provide deterrence. The court imposed a sentence consisting of a non-parole period of one year and a head sentence of two years. This sentence aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration of the appellant into society. The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for the appellant, with a non-parole period of one year and a head sentence of two years. The appellant was also required to comply with any additional conditions or orders imposed by the court as part of the sentencing process. This decision provides guidance for practitioners on the approach to sentencing in cases involving assault occasioning actual bodily harm, particularly where an early guilty plea is made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of one year and a head sentence of 2 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Pattalis [2012] NSWDC 10
Hearing dates:	2 November 2012
Decision date:	02 November 2012
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of one year and a head sentence of 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Assault occasion actual bodily harm - Conditional offer to plead guilty
Cases Cited:	Blackwell v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 93; 208 A Crim 5 392 De Simoni v R (1981) 147 CLR 383
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Alex Costa Pattalis
Representation:	Mr G Corr - The Crown Mr P Lowe - The Offender Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2011/75570