Regina v George KATZ [2005] NSWCCA 128

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v George KATZ [2005] NSWCCA 128

HEARING DATE(S): 29 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 29 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hoeben J at 30; Johnson J at 31

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - whether inadequate reduction for pleas of guilty because mental illness impeded earlier pleas - not shown mental illness did so - whether inadequate variation in statutory ratio following finding special circumstances - no necessary extent of variation - variation open to the judge - whether error in partial accumulation of sentences - no error shown. ND

R v Carter [2001] NSWCCA 245 R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117; CASES CITED: R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225; R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383.

PARTIES: Regina v George KATZ (aka Katsaitis)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/3318

G Rowling - Crown COUNSEL: J Manuell & E Ozen -Applicant

S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 03/21/0386. DC 03/21/0387

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Delaney DCJ

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CCA 2004/3318 DC 03/21/0386 DC 03/21/0387

GILES JA HOEBEN J JOHNSON J

Tuesday 29 March 2005 REGINA v George KATZ Judgment 1 GILES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to four offences committed in August 1999, and was sentenced to an effective total term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of two years nine months. He applied for leave to appeal on grounds which were refined in the submissions of his counsel to the three grounds: (1) that the discount of 15 percent allowed by the judge in relation to the pleas of guilty was inadequate; (2) that the judge erred in that, although finding special circumstances, he gave but a token variation of the statutory ratio of 75 percent down to 70 percent; and (3) that the judge erred in partially accumulating the sentences for the offences. 2 As will be seen, there was a degree of relationship between all three of these grounds. 3 The applicant's offences were described in detail in the judge's remarks on sentence, and for present purposes a summary is sufficient. 4 In June 1999 some blank cheques were stolen. Their serial numbers were known. 5 On 9 August 1999 the applicant booked into a room in some residential apartments under a false name. 6 On 12 August 1999 the applicant went to a clothing supplier and, using the false name, ordered a large quantity of clothing. He paid with one of the stolen bank cheques made out for $37,500. The applicant used his computer skills to complete the cheque in that manner. Most of the clothing was loaded and taken away. 7 The next day the applicant altered the order resulting in some more money being payable, but when the cheque was banked on 13 August 1999 it was recognised as one of the stolen cheques and was not met. Before the rest of the clothing was delivered the applicant was alerted in conversations with the clothing supplier, and he decamped. 8 On 14 August 1999 the applicant went to an electrical goods supplier and, using his own name, ordered a large quantity of electrical goods. He paid with another of the stolen bank cheques made out for $19,400. On 15 August 1999 he ordered further electrical goods from the supplier, for which he paid on 16 August 1999 with another of the bank cheques made out for $40,778. In this case, the electrical goods were loaded and taken away. The cheques were not met. 9 Returning to the residential apartments, the occupant had not been seen for some time and the rent was in arrears. On 17 August 1999 the proprietors entered the room and found that the applicant had left and that the television and video recorder were missing. 10 From these events came the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty, being: