R v Gattellari; R v Hatfield [2019] NSWDC 244

R v Gattellari; R v Hatfield [2019] NSWDC 244

Each offence was about mid-level objective gravity. Mr Gattellari was the catalyst for both conspiracies, while Mr Hatfield had a more active day-to-day role in the second conspiracy; the amounts demanded were very large, the offences were committed in custody, and Mr Hatfield's motive was greed. Delay, parole consequences, totality, special circumstances, Mr Gattellari's onerous custody and the offenders' subjective circumstances justified the sentences and backdating imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Conspiracy to Defraud / Sentencing After Guilty Verdicts on Indictment
Outcome
Both offenders were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Non-publication orders were made.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Defraud' 'obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'offences Committed While in Custody' 'objective Seriousness' 'non Parole Period' 'aggregate Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'non Publication Orders']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['conspiracy to Defraud' 'obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'offences Committed While in Custody' 'objective Seriousness' 'non Parole Period' 'aggregate Sentence' 'special Circumstances' 'non Publication Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence for Conspiracy to Defraud / Sentencing After Guilty Verdicts on Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentence should be imposed for the offenders' conspiracy to defraud Ron Medich." 'How to assess the objective gravity of each offence, including the role played by each offender, the amount of money involved and motive.' 'What weight should be given to the fact that the offences were committed while the offenders were in custody.' 'What weight should be given to subjective circumstances, delay, parole consequences, totality and special circumstances.' 'Whether an aggregate sentence should be imposed for Fortunato (Lucky) Gattellari.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each offence was about mid-level objective gravity. Mr Gattellari was the catalyst for both conspiracies, while Mr Hatfield had a more active day-to-day role in the second conspiracy; the amounts demanded were very large, the offences were committed in custody, and Mr Hatfield's motive was greed. Delay, parole consequences, totality, special circumstances, Mr Gattellari's onerous custody and the offenders' subjective circumstances justified the sentences and backdating imposed.

Court Disposition

Both offenders were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Non-publication orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 7(b) of the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 there is a non-publication order in respect of the names of AB and CD, applying throughout the Commonwealth of Australia until the trials of AB and CD have concluded or until further order of the Court.' 'Pursuant to s 7(b) of the...