Citation: R v Craig Charles Pitts [2013] NSWSC 518
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 May 2013
Judge(s): Adamson J
Background
The offender was convicted by jury of the manslaughter of the deceased following an incident in the early hours of 2 August 2011 at an apartment building in Redfern. The deceased and another man had twice been turned away from the offender's unit when they sought to purchase cannabis. The deceased then kicked in the offender's front door, causing his sister and young nieces inside to flee in fright.
After the deceased and his companion walked back toward the lifts, the offender retrieved a kitchen knife from his unit and followed them into the hallway. An altercation occurred approximately 14 metres from the unit's entrance, during which the offender stabbed the deceased in the chest. The knife pierced the deceased's heart and he died shortly afterwards.
The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter without specifying the basis. The sentencing hearing required Adamson J to determine the factual basis for the verdict and then impose an appropriate sentence.
Legal Issues
- On what basis did the jury return its manslaughter verdict, and what factual findings were consistent with that verdict?
- Whether the manslaughter was by excessive self-defence, unlawful and dangerous act, or provocation.
- What sentence was appropriate having regard to objective seriousness, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the maximum penalty of 25 years.
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and head sentence.
Decision
Finding the basis of the verdict. Adamson J declined to question the jury about the basis of its verdict, consistent with established authority that this is a matter for the sentencing judge to resolve. The Crown argued for manslaughter by excessive self-defence, contending it had proved beyond reasonable doubt an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The offender argued for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, submitting he had not intended to stab the deceased in the chest. Adamson J accepted that even if the offender believed he was stabbing the deceased in the stomach, he nonetheless intended to cause grievous bodily harm. Manslaughter by provocation was excluded because the offender had not lost self-control; his act of arming himself was deliberate, if angry.
Excessive self-defence. The court found it was reasonably possible the offender believed his conduct was necessary to defend himself, his sister, or his nieces. However, stabbing the deceased was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them. The court accordingly determined the verdict was consistent only with manslaughter by excessive self-defence.
Objective seriousness and sentencing factors. The offender bore no longstanding hostility toward the deceased but intended to cause him grievous bodily harm. The use of a knife was identified as an aggravating factor. Mitigating factors included the absence of planning, provocation by the deceased's own act of violence (heightened by the presence of the offender's sister and nieces), no significant prior criminal record, good prospects of rehabilitation, genuine remorse, and the distress the offender experienced immediately after the incident.
Special circumstances and sentence. Adamson J was not satisfied that special circumstances existed warranting a departure from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence. The court accepted that a lack of prior incarceration was unlikely, of itself, to justify further reducing the non-parole period.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the manslaughter of the deceased.
- Non-parole period: 7 years and 6 months.
- Sentence commenced 16 September 2012, backdated to account for pre-sentence custody.
- Earliest eligible parole date: 15 March 2020.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing judge is not required to ask the jury the basis of a manslaughter verdict; it falls to the sentencing judge to determine the facts consistently with the verdict, applying different standards of proof depending on whether findings are adverse or favourable to the offender.
- Manslaughter by excessive self-defence applies where it is reasonably possible the offender believed defensive force was necessary, but the response was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances as perceived by the offender.
- An intention to cause grievous bodily harm can be established even where the offender claims to have aimed at a different part of the body, provided the intent to inflict serious harm was present.
- The Supreme Court confirmed that a first-time offender's lack of prior incarceration is relevant to the total sentence and non-parole period generally, but is unlikely on its own to constitute "special circumstances" warranting a further reduction in the non-parole period.
- Manslaughter consistently produces the widest range of sentences of any offence, given the significant variation in culpability across the circumstances in which it is committed.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 24 (maximum penalty for manslaughter: 25 years)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(1)(c) (maximum penalty as indicator of seriousness); s 44 (statutory ratio between non-parole period and head sentence)
Cases:
- R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270 (standard of proof at sentencing)
- R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324; 110 A Crim R 198 (jury not required to be unanimous on type of manslaughter)
- R v Dally [2000] NSWCCA 162; 115 A Crim R 582 (same principle)
- R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 373 (inadvisability of questioning jury on basis of manslaughter verdict)
- R v Lavender [2005] HCA 37; 222 CLR 67 (range of sentences for manslaughter)
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 (maximum penalty as indicator of relative seriousness)
- Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213 (circumstances warranting a finding of special circumstances)