R v Alex Cittadini [2009] NSWDC 179

R v Alex Cittadini [2009] NSWDC 179

The appropriate sentence for manslaughter by criminal negligence by omission, even where four deaths occurred, must take into account the relatively lower culpability from omission as opposed to commission, lack of knowledge of the defect, prior good character, delay not attributable to the offender, and totality of criminality. Partial accumulation of sentences was warranted due to multiple victims from a single omission, but individual sentences were at the lower end of the scale given the facts.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Offender: Alex Cittadini
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Conviction and custodial sentence imposed
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Criminal Negligence, Sentencing, Totality Principle, Concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences
Criminal Law Manslaughter Criminal Negligence Sentencing Totality Principle Concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Alex Cittadini

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for manslaughter by criminal negligence by omission resulting in four deaths
  2. 2 Application of totality principle for multiple offences
  3. 3 Assessment of objective seriousness and mitigation in industrial manslaughter context

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate sentence for manslaughter by criminal negligence by omission, even where four deaths occurred, must take into account the relatively lower culpability from omission as opposed to commission, lack of knowledge of the defect, prior good character, delay not attributable to the offender, and totality of criminality. Partial accumulation of sentences was warranted due to multiple victims from a single omission, but individual sentences were at the lower end of the scale given the facts.

Court Disposition

Conviction and custodial sentence imposed

Orders

  • For Counts 1 & 2: Imprisonment for 2 years 6 months each, commencing 10/07/09, expiring 09/01/2012; non-parole period of 1 year 6 months expiring 09/01/2011.
  • For Counts 3 & 4: Imprisonment for 2 years 6 months each, commencing 10/01/2010, expiring 09/07/2012; non-parole period of 1 year commencing 10/01/2010, expiring 09/01/2011.