Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Heatley

Regina v Heatley

Case [2006] NSWSC 1199 21 November 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Heatley [2006] NSWSC 1199

HEARING DATE(S): 23/10/06, 25/10/06, 26/10/06, 27/10/06, 30/10/06, 1/11/06, 2/11/06, 3/11/06, 6/11/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
21 November 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: For the offence of robbery with a dangerous weapon, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment for 4 years. The sentence is to be backdated to commence on 27 March 2004 and is to expire on 26 March 2008. For the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 8 years and a balance of term of 6 years. The sentence is to commence on 27 March 2008 and the non-parole period expires on 26 March 2016, the date on which you will be eligible to be released on parole. The balance of the term will expire on 26 March 2022. For the 7 recommendations made - see judgment.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal practice and procedure - manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment of mind - robbery with a dangerous weapon - difficulties of reconciling sentencing principles in mental illness matters - systemic failure by Corrective Services Department - gaol violence and death in custody - special circumstances in mental illness matters.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 at 604
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Regina v Carlson (unreported NSWSC 16 October 1995
R v Engert (1996) A Crim R 67 at 68
R Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at (33-36) per Sperling J
R v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 213 at (24-26) and (33-34)
R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 314 at (27-35)
R v Hughes [2005] NSWCCA 117 at (24-29)
R v Israel [2002] NSWCCA 255 at (23) per Spigelman CJ
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 at 402
E v McDonald (NSWCCA 12 December 1995)
R v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416 per Wood CJ at CL
R v McGuire (NSWCCA unreported 30 August 1995)
R v Troja (NSWCCA unreported 15 July 1991)
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734 at 738-739
R v Montgomery [2004] 151 A Crim R 376 at [5] per Spigelman CJ
R v Trevenna [2004] 149 A Crim R 5005 at [98-100]

PARTIES: Regina v Michael Alan Heatley

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/113

COUNSEL: Ms M. Cunneen - Crown
Mr W.Terracini SC; Mr G. Newton - Offender

SOLICITORS: Office of DDP - Crown
Ross Hill & Associates - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

TUESDAY 21 November 2006

2005/113 - REGINA v Michael Alan HEATLEY

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 27 March 2004, Michael Heatley (whom I shall refer to as the offender) beat and kicked to death a fellow inmate Craig Anthony Behr (the deceased). The attack occurred in a cell at Long Bay Prison Hospital.

2 The prisoner pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment. The psychiatric evidence…

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 Regina v Heatley

Details

AGLC: Regina v Heatley [2006] NSWSC 1199
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1199
Decision Date: 21 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Heatley is a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Heatley, faced charges related to manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment of mind, arising from a robbery involving a dangerous weapon. The case involved complex issues surrounding sentencing principles applicable in mental illness matters and highlighted systemic failures within the Corrective Services Department, particularly in relation to gaol violence and deaths in custody. The court had to navigate the interplay between these systemic failures and the defendant's mental health status, which significantly influenced his capacity to understand and participate in his defence.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate application of sentencing principles in cases involving substantial mental impairment, and the extent to which systemic failures within the Corrective Services Department should be considered in sentencing. Specifically, the court had to determine how to balance the need for just punishment with the recognition of the defendant's mental health condition, and whether these systemic issues warranted any special considerations in the sentencing process. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the impact of these systemic failures on the defendant's mental health and subsequent behaviour in custody.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant role that systemic failures within the Corrective Services Department played in deteriorating the defendant's mental health, leading to the violent incident that resulted in death. The court recognised that these systemic issues were not merely background factors but critical elements that shaped the defendant's circumstances and influenced his actions. By considering these factors, the court aimed to ensure that the sentencing reflected the full context of the defendant's mental state and the environment in which he was held. Ultimately, the court found that the systemic failures were sufficiently severe to warrant special consideration in the sentencing, resulting in a more lenient outcome that took into account the defendant's impaired mental state and the adverse effects of his time in custody.

The final orders of the court reflected the special circumstances recognised during sentencing. While the court did not dismiss the seriousness of the offence, it imposed a sentence that recognised the substantial mental impairment and the impact of systemic failures within the Corrective Services Department. The sentence was designed to address the defendant's needs, providing appropriate support and treatment within the custodial environment, and aimed to mitigate the risk of further harm resulting from similar systemic issues.

Orders