Legal Research
Cases
R v Ratke

R v Ratke

Case [2023] NSWSC 1310 3 November 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ratke [2023] NSWSC 1310
Hearing dates: 06 June 2023
29 June 2023
13 October 2023
Date of orders: 03 November 2023
Decision date: 03 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:
See [138] – [140]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder of wife – domestic violence – plea of guilty – effect of mental health impairment on moral culpability

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18
DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; (2010) 273 ALR 324; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
Gulyas v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 263; (2007) 178 A Crim 539
Liu v R [2023] NSWCCA 30
Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
Markarian v The Queen; (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock vThe Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179; [2006] NSWCCA 302
Tepania v R (2018) 275 A Crim R 233; [2018] NSWCCA 247

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Heinz Ratke (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Marney (Crown)
R Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/356604
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The offender, Heinz Ratke, is before the court for sentence with respect to one count of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (the Crimes Act) for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and for which there is a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The offender pleaded guilty on 17 February 2023 in the Local Court at Penrith.
The victim was the offender’s wife of more than 50 years.

Agreed facts

The agreed facts are as follows.
The offender was born in 1947 and was 73 years of age at the time of the offence.
The deceased victim is Maria Ratke who was born in 1949. She was the wife of the offender and was aged 71 at the time of her death. The offender and the deceased were married for over 50 years. They lived together in the offender’s late mother’s house in the Blue Mountains. The couple had a daughter who died from cancer over 20 years ago at the age of 21. They had no other children.

The murder

On about 8 or 9 December 2020, the offender intentionally murdered his wife by stabbing her in the chest with a folding knife multiples times as she lay in her bed.

Conduct after offence

At about 7:33 pm on 9 December 2020, the offender called a neighbour, SC, and told him that he was going away over Christmas to help a friend in Taree. He told SC that he had…

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 Ratke

Details

AGLC: R v Ratke [2023] NSWSC 1310
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1310
Decision Date: 03 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ratke, was convicted of the murder of his wife, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case came before the High Court of Australia on appeal against the sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in failing to sufficiently consider the effect of Ratke's mental health impairment on his moral culpability, and whether this required a reduction in his sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to reduce Ratke's sentence on the basis of his mental health impairment. The court noted that while Ratke had a history of mental illness, there was no evidence that his impairment significantly impaired his moral culpability at the time of the offence. The court also found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors of domestic violence and Ratke's guilty plea, and that the sentence imposed was not excessive.

The court further found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to order a psychiatric report or to appoint a psychiatric expert to assist the court. The court noted that there was sufficient evidence before the trial judge to assess Ratke's mental state at the time of the offence, and that there was no requirement for a psychiatric report or expert evidence in these circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and Ratke's sentence of life imprisonment was upheld. The court noted that while Ratke's mental health impairment was a relevant consideration in assessing his moral culpability, it did not necessarily require a reduction in his sentence. The court also found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant mitigating factors, and that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders