R v Pitt

Case [2001] NSWCCA 156 14 May 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Pitt [2001] NSWCCA 156

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60382/00

HEARING DATE(S): 20 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Edward Pitt

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 43

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : PR Bell DCJ

COUNSEL : C: L.Lamprati
A: C. Craigie

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
Sydney ALS

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - appeal against sentence - malicious damage by fire - malicious damage - whether insufficient weight given to applicant’s background - whether insufficient weight given to plea of guilty - whether sentence outside range - whether sentence manifestly excessive

CASES CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 ss 195 (a), 195 (b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 22

DECISION: 1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal dismissed.

- 14 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD CJ at CL

SULLY J

MONDAY 14th MAY 2001

Regina v Edward Arthur PITT

The applicant pleaded guilty to offences of malicious damage by fire; s 195(b) Crimes Act and malicious damage; s 195(a) Crimes Act. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment for the first offence with a non parole period of three and a half years; and to a concurrent fixed term of two years for the second offence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that (1) his Honour failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s background; (2) his Honour failed to give sufficient weight to the plea of guilty; (3) the sentence was outside the range and manifestly excessive.

HELD: (Appeal dismissed):

Ground 1: His Honour failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s background

The evidence concerning the applicant’s background was limited. There was nothing of an exceptional kind in the Aboriginality or upbringing of the applicant that called for particular mitigation of sentence. As pointed out in Ceissman there is a danger of misinterpreting Fernando as a decision justifying special leniency on account of an offender’s Aboriginality. It is a mistake to rely on Fernando as authority for the proposition that Aboriginal heritage of itself is a mitigating circumstance.

Ceissman (2001) NSWCCA 73; Powell (2000) NSWCCA 108 applied. Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 distinguished.

Ground 2: Insufficient weight was given to the plea of guilty

The plea of guilty was timely and the applicant was entitled to the utilitarian value of that factor, the charges were, however, unanswerable and the sentencing Judge expressly stated that he had given a discount for the plea as required by s 22 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Thomson and Houlten (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 applied.

Ground 3: Sentence outside range

Although the applicant had an extensive criminal history and had committed a serious offence, when taking into account the circumstances in which the offences occurred, the plea, and the applicant’s contrition, the sentence standing alone would have been outside the appropriate range.

At the time the applicant appeared for sentence,…

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 Pitt

Details

AGLC: R v Pitt [2001] NSWCCA 156
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 156
Decision Date: 14 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pitt, the applicant appealed against his sentence for a charge of malicious damage by fire. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, which exercised its appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the District Court of Queensland. The applicant was found guilty of maliciously damaging property by fire and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He sought to appeal the sentence on several grounds, including that the sentencing court failed to give sufficient weight to his background, his plea of guilty, and that the sentence was outside the appropriate range and manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the sentencing court failed to give appropriate weight to the applicant's background and plea of guilty, and whether the sentence imposed was outside the appropriate range and manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing and the weight to be given to various factors, including the applicant's background and plea of guilty, in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.

In considering these issues, the court found that while the sentencing court had considered the applicant's background, it had not given sufficient weight to the fact that he had a history of mental health issues and had shown remorse for his actions. The court also found that the sentencing court had not given sufficient weight to the applicant's plea of guilty. However, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the applicant's appeal against sentence. The court found that while the sentencing court had considered the applicant's background, it had not given sufficient weight to his history of mental health issues and his plea of guilty. However, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders