Director of Public Prosecutions v Taauso
[2022] VCC 1672
•28 September 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-22-00413
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MANILA TAAUSO |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE P. LACAVA | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 August 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 September 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Taauso | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1672 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Intentionally Causing Serious Injury in circumstances of gross violence.
Sentence: 13 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr Zoran Petric | |
| For the Accused | Mr Matthew Page |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Manila Taauso, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of Intentionally Causing Serious Injury in circumstances of gross violence. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years. The same maximum penalty applies for the offence of Intentionally Causing Serious Injury simpliciter. Also, this is a category 1 offence within section 5(2G) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (“the Act"). That means you must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a non-parole period fixed. The offence attracts a minimum non-parole period of four years unless relevantly you suffered from impaired mental functioning at the time of committing the offence, within section 10A of the Act. It was not submitted here that I should impose the minimum non-parole period of four years or less.
2 You also pleaded guilty to one related summary offence of possession of a controlled weapon, an axe, without lawful excuse. You agreed to having that related summary charge dealt with by me in this court. The maximum penalty for this related summary charge is imprisonment for one year.
3 The charges relate to your offending which occurred on the
2nd December 2021. The circumstances of your offending are summarised in a lengthy summary of prosecution opening dated 22 July 2022. That document was read to the court by the prosecutor Mr Petric. Your counsel Mr Page accepted that the prosecution summary was accurate and forms a proper factual basis upon which I can proceed to pass sentence upon you. In those circumstances, it is not necessary that I hear set out in detail all of the facts but do so only in an abbreviated way.
4 These sentencing remarks should, however, be read with what is set out in more detail in the summary.
5 You were born in Samoa and at the time of this offending you were aged
39 years. You were living in Australia for the last 12 years on a
Special Category Visa and you were working in the construction industry. Earlier in your life you moved to New Zealand where you played rugby. You are a New Zealand citizen and now, a permanent resident of Australia.
6 At the time of offending you were married to the principal victim here,
Selestina Taauso, and you had three children, a 16 year old daughter, a 14 year old daughter and 11 year old son. Your wife worked as a disability support worker. The family were living together in Tarneit and the three children attended school, at the time of the offending.
7 In 2018 your younger daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumour. At the same time your wife was diagnosed with Endometriosis. Both were hospitalised at the same time. I was told that because of this you turned to abusing drugs and alcohol.
8 In 2019 you began accusing your wife of infidelity and you became controlling and aggressive towards her and you made allegations about your wife in front of the children.
9 In January 2019 your wife was forced to contact police after you implied you would harm the children. As a result, you were served with a
Family Violence Safety Notice and an Interim Family Violence Intervention Order and your wife and children were forced to move to a women’s refuge. A Family Violence Intervention Order was issued on 28th February 2019 for
12 months.
10 During this time, you and your wife reconciled somewhat although you remained separated under the one roof with the children. You continued to argue with your wife.
11 In 2020 your wife moved to Melton with the children and lived with a cousin of your wife. Your wife recommenced working as a disability support worker and she and the children then moved into a property in Tarneit. In 2020 you lost your job and your house and you asked to re-join your wife and children. Your wife agreed and together you co-parented your children at the Tarneit property.
12 Further police involvement was necessitated because of your arguments and your accusations about your wife in March and August 2021. You moved out for about two weeks but your wife later agreed to you coming back to the home to see the children. This eventually led to you again taking up residence with your wife and children.
13 On the day of offending the family were living in the Tarneit property. Your wife awoke to prepare for work. Soon after you accused her of infidelity with the next-door neighbour. The basis of your belief apparently was that you observed a garbage bin up against the fence with damage to its lid and a nearby towel. You apparently decided this was evidence that your wife was sleeping with the next-door neighbour.
14 You confronted your wife who immediately questioned what you were talking about. She otherwise set about readying the children for school and tried to avoid you. You wife told you that if you were going to continue with your accusatory behaviour you should leave.
15 Soon after you punched your wife to the face causing her to fall to the floor and she was rendered unconscious. You then obtained a silver kitchen knife and walked back to your wife who had regained consciousness. As she tried to crawl away from you, you then cut the left Achilles heel of your wife causing a deep and significant wound. This was a deliberate act to prevent her from running away, and resulted in your wife being incapacitated.
16 Your younger daughter and son were upstairs. They heard the argument and a loud noise, they came downstairs and observed you with the knife dripping in blood and their mother on the floor. They called for you to stop.
17 But you didn’t stop. Having rendered your wife incapacitated you then proceeded to punch her about five times to the head with full force. This was observed by younger daughter who then used your elder daughter’s phone to call police.
18 You still did not stop. You began slicing at your wife’s hands and face with the knife. Your wife put her hands up in self-defence. You attempted to cut her right eye out and in doing so caused significant wounds to her face, and permanent loss of sight in her right eye. Whilst your wife had her hands up in self-defence you tried to cut off her left hand causing significant knife wounds to both her hands including almost severing some fingers. The knife wounds were so deep the bone was exposed in your wife’s left hand. You then dragged your wife by the hair where you left her to go to the garage to retrieve an axe. You then decamped in your wife’s vehicle, taking with you an axe, a meat cleaver and a small knife. You threatened your wife both verbally and via
SMS message ostensibly giving her one last chance to tell you the truth.
19 Your children were left with their badly injured mother who was obviously disabled and covered in blood as was a large area of the house. Your younger daughter gave first aid to her mother until police and ambulance arrived. Your wife was conveyed to Royal Melbourne Hospital by ambulance.
20 A number of photographs showing the extent of the horrific injuries you inflicted upon your wife were tendered in evidence. They graphically depict the mayhem that you unleashed in the family home at about 6.20 in the morning when the totally innocent members of your family could only have been thinking of readying themselves to embark upon what they thought would be a normal day, either at work or at school.
21 At about 7.20am the same morning, after speaking with your brother, you surrendered yourself to Sunshine Police Station where you were immediately arrested. You were interviewed about three hours later and you made full admissions in a very matter of fact way and without showing remorse. See paragraphs 45 to 63 of the prosecution summary.
22 Because of what you did, your wife sustained shocking injuries which are
self-evidently serious:
a. Deep laceration on her forehead and scalp.
b. Deep laceration on her left cheek.
c. Deep laceration to her right eyelid.
d. Right orbital wall blowout fracture and globe rupture of the eye.
e. Permanent loss of vision in her right eye and has undergone surgery to save the physical eyeball.
f. Transverse fracture of front tooth.
g. Deep laceration to her right arm and hand with tendon and bone injuries.
h. Multiple deep lacerations to her left hand and tendons including bone being exposed under her left index finger. The victim has been unable to move her hand since this incident and currently has a steel plate inserted in it.
i. Deep large laceration to lower left ankle causing multiple tendon and nerve damage to her left Achilles heel. The victim has been unable to bear weight on this leg since the incident and currently has a steel plate inserted in it.
23 This is obviously a very serious example of what is a most serious offence. It is hard to imagine a more serious example of this offence. You were intent on first incapacitating your wife, first by knocking her unconscious. and then by cutting her left Achilles heel with a knife so she could not escape the vicious violence that you intended to further subject her. Having done so, you then set about using a knife to disfigure her, and attempted to cut her eye out, whilst at the same time causing horrific injury to your wife’s hands and arms as she helplessly attempted to protect herself. All this in front of, or in close proximity to, your children. This offending by you against your wife in a domestic violence context, in my opinion would, absent any mitigatory factors, require the imposition of a sentence equivalent, or near to, the maximum penalty. The courts will not tolerate men offending against their partners in this truly shocking way.
24 Fortunately, for you there are some factors that I must take into account, as part of the overall facts and circumstances relating to you, in arriving at an appropriate sentence. I shall return to these later. Those factors, as a matter of law, must mitigate the sentence.
25 I received in evidence a victim impact statement from your wife. Exhibit B. That document was very bravely read by your wife. In it she sets out in detail how she and the whole family has been impacted by what you did to her. She will suffer from what you did to her for the rest of her life. Remarkably, after suffering the life-threatening injuries you inflicted, she has returned to work, doubtless driven by the need that she now has to support the children alone. In the statement she speaks of how she tried to help you through your difficult times but you responded in this way, by almost killing her. I also received victim impact statements from your three children. The incredibly violent ordeal to which your offending has subjected each of them to has left shocking memories for each of them to have to deal with and doubtless for a very long time. In passing sentence I have taken the contents of the victim impact statements fully into account as I must.
26 Clearly, the sentencing principles of deterrence (both general and specific), denunciation and protection of the public and just punishment have to be fully taken into account in sentencing you. I regard your moral culpability for this offending as high. I must also take into account all of the matters in mitigation advanced on your behalf, and your prospects for rehabilitation.
27 Mr Page filed with the court a helpful outline of his submissions in writing which I marked as exhibit 1 on the plea. He relied upon a psychological report dated the 24th April 2022 from psychologist Sandra Cokorillo. Exhibit 2. She interviewed you via video conference on the 30th March 2022.
28 At the outset Mr Page conceded that your offending was a serious example of the offence of Intentionally Causing Serious Injury in circumstances of gross violence.
29 You were remanded into custody on the 2nd December 2021 and you have served 300 days pre-sentence detention. After two case conferences in the Magistrates’ Court, you indicated that you would plead guilty on the
17th March 2022.
30 Your time in custody thus far, and in the foreseeable future, has been, and will be, affected by COVID-19 which has seen movements of prisoners within prisons being limited and with limited visitations from loved one. Courses available to prisoners have been reduced and at times prisoners are confined to cells. I take into account that your time in custody thus far, and in the future, has been and will be more burdensome for you than it ought be.
31 At the age of 40 you have no prior convictions and this is your first time in custody. Whilst you have previously been a person of good character, and whilst I accept you are now remorseful, whether you can be fully rehabilitated depends I think on you receiving ongoing psychological treatment when released from custody for what Ms Cokorillo diagnosed as
Delusional Disorder Jealous Type. I think your prospects for rehabilitation are reasonable but guarded.
32 Importantly here, you have pleaded guilty to the charges and indicated that you would do so without a committal. I treat you for sentencing purposes as having pleaded guilty to the charges at the earliest opportunity. By pleading guilty you have saved the time and costs of a trial, and committal, and you have saved your wife and children from having to give evidence against you in a trial before a jury and be subjected to cross-examination by your counsel. You have thus saved them from having to re-live what you put them through on the day of offending.
33 By pleading guilty to each of the charges, you have accepted responsibility for your offending and you have advanced the administration of justice. For that you are entitled to, and will receive, a reduction in sentence and this will be reflected in the overall sentence that I will soon impose. Your pleas of guilty also signify your remorse for this offending which I have taken into account.
34 Further, your pleas of guilty to the charges are especially important in the present environment where this court is faced with a considerable backlog in criminal trials because of the COVID-19 pandemic. By pleading guilty you have not contributed to that backlog, and you are entitled to a significant reduction in sentence for having done so.
35 You are 40 years of age. You left Samoa aged 18 for New Zealand on a
Rugby Scholarship after completing year 12. You arrived in Australia in 2010 with your wife with whom you had been in a relationship since 2002. You have a good work history and have always been gainfully employed in factory and labouring work.
36 I was told and accept that your relationship with your wife broke down and you turned to drinking and smoking cannabis. You told Ms Cokorillo that in the
two years leading up to this offending your alcohol use escalated to near daily excessive use and your cannabis use also increased to daily use in the
18 months leading to the offending. You told Ms Cokorillo that you smoked a joint of cannabis immediately before offending.
37 Based on what you told Ms Cokorillo, in her report at paragraphs 53 to 56
Ms Cokorillo said this:
Upon exploration of the basis for his beliefs about his partner's infidelity,
Mr Taauso conceded that he never had any evidence to support his beliefs, stating, 'It is just in my belief.' He described beliefs that his friends were against him and were sexually interested in his partner. He reported command hallucinations and nightmares. He noted he was affected by cannabis at the time of offending, which exacerbates his mental health problems. Mr Taauso reported he believed his partner was, 'Doing something with the neighbour.' He explained that he saw 'an indent' on the top of the bin positioned next to the neighbour's fence and there was a towel placed there which led him to form the belief that she was accessing the neighbour's property by climbing over the fence whilst Mr Taauso was asleep.
He informed that on the day of the offending after he smoked a joint, he confronted his partner about it and she responded by telling him he was 'crazy' and to leave their home and that he needs to leave the home and return to reside with his friend. Mr Taauso explained he was deeply affected by her response as he did not wish to leave their home and be homeless as his partner and children are his only family in Australia, adding his partner has been his family since they met. He reported his 'mind saw black' and he was 'a different person'. Adding that 'everything happened so quick'. He made no attempts to deny or minimise his offending, however, it is noted that he minimised the historical conflict caused by his accusations stemming from his delusions.
He reported he stopped assaulting his partner when his daughter pleaded with him to stop. He reported he instructed his daughter to call the ambulance and police, and then left the house.
38 Ms Cokorillo carried out psychological testing of you for depression. She concluded you suffer from a moderately severe level of depression and a mild level of anxiety with some suicidal thoughts.
39 Ms Cokorillo was of the opinion your offending arose as a consequence of you suffering from untreated Delusional Disorder, jealous type. She opined “Delusional Disorder is characterised by the presence of delusions lasting more than one month, with hallucinations, if present, being related to the delusional theme and not prominent." She opined that “with the exception of impact of delusions or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired, and the behaviour is not obviously bizarre or odd.” She went on to say, “Mr Taauso demonstrates a history of neurotypical functioning otherwise, evidenced by stable education and employment and absence of involvement with the justice system”. [74]
40 Ms Cokorillo described Delusional Disorder, jealous type at paragraphs 78 to 84 of her report. She said this:
Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type, has been associated with violence and homicide. Dobash et al 2009 identified jealousy as a factor in 30 per cent of spousal homicide by male perpetrators. Delusions and paranoid ideation including suspicion, mistrust, hostility and projections lead to disproportionate reactivity to misinterpret circumstances. Repeated, often violent, questing of the partner is an attempt to force 'a confession' are common manifestations of the illness, as was the case with Mr Taauso at the time of offending.
The risk of violence in Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type was found to be increased by command hallucinations and alcohol use, which are relevant to
Mr Taauso's case. Whilst alcohol use exacerbates existing jealous delusions, it's not considered to be a primary cause. Rather, the disinhibition that accompanies intoxication results in worsening of symptoms and the underlying disorder. Mr Taauso reported and increase in self-medication with alcohol and cannabis in the two years preceding the offending and acknowledged the consequent intensification of his beliefs relating to his partner's infidelity.
Moreover, Mr Taauso's escalation in cannabis use and intoxication at the time of offending is relevant. He indicated he smoked a joint immediately prior to the offending. THC, the main active ingredient of cannabis, is known to increase paranoia as well as anxiety, worry, negative thoughts, and it lowers mood. Further, it compromises higher executive functions with self-control,
self-inhibition, moral reasoning and decision-making being of particular relevance to Mr Taauso's offending.
It is also noteworthy that in 2018, Mr Taauso's daughter was diagnosed with cancer and he witnessed a fatal workplace incident where his attempts to revive the victim had failed. Such traumatic events have undoubtedly further compromised his functioning, resulting in posttraumatic symptomatology including hyperarousal, negative alterations in cognitions and emotions, intrusions and avoidance. His PTSD symptoms would have not only exacerbated his underlying mental health problems through increased autonomic arousal and reactivity and negative affect, but are also thought to have contributed to escalation in his self-medication with alcohol and cannabis use.
He has never received treatment for his trauma. Moreover, jealous delusions are a form of psychotic illness and should be addressed with urgency as they are unlikely to resolve without appropriate treatment. Mr Taauso reported participation in brief, court-mandated mental health and alcohol and drug counselling following the FVIO of 2019. Considering the strong association between Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type, and intimate partner violence, it seems clear that such a brief intervention was inadequate and has failed to mitigate the risk that should have been apparent.
Mr Taauso appeared genuine in his expressions of remorse for his offending and acknowledged the severity of impacts on his ex-partner and their children. He made no attempts to minimise or deny his offending conduct and reported PTSD symptoms directly arising from his offending. Concerningly, he expressed hope that his ex-partner 'will forgive me and want to see me again'.
Delusional Disorder is typically a chronic condition and the prognosis varies depending on individual factors. Often geographical separation of partners is necessary. Further, it is noted that delusional jealousy has a high rate of recurrence and can recur when a new partner replaces a former partner, warranting intensive treatment to minimise risk of recidivism.
41 Whilst for the purposes of sentencing, I accept that you may have suffered from Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type, but I do not accept it was the cause of you offending as you did. The fact remains at the time of offending you were
drug-affected, and from what you said to Ms Cokorillo that use of drugs and alcohol intensified your beliefs as to your partner’s asserted infidelity. In my opinion it was your drug use that tipped you over the line to offending as you did. You grossly over-reacted to your wife telling you that you were “crazy” when you alleged that she had been unfaithful with your next-door neighbour.
42 Mr Page submitted that having regard to the opinion of Ms Cokorillo, I should find that your offending was caused by your suffering previously undiagnosed Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type, thereby enlivening Verdins principles 3 and 4 reducing the weight given in my sentence to deterrence, both general and specific deterrence. I do not accept that submission. You knew that the more you smoked cannabis or used alcohol, the worse your delusions would become. You chose to smoke cannabis immediately before offending. I am not satisfied that your moral culpability for this offending is reduced by reason of your undiagnosed Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type, or that a special circumstance exists that justifies imposing less than a minimum non-parole period of
four (4) years imprisonment.
43 Mr Page urged me to impose a short period of imprisonment with a non-parole period. I reject that submission. In my opinion such a disposition would not achieve proper application of the sentencing principles needed to be applied in this case.
44 The prosecution submitted that undiagnosed Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type, does not constitute impaired mental functioning for the purposes of section 10A of the Act. I accept that submission.
45 In passing sentence, I do take into account in a general way you suffer Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type, and that you suffer moderate depression and anxiety.
46 On charge 1 intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
13 years.
47 On the related summary offence of possession of a controlled weapon, an axe, without lawful excuse, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three (3) months.
48 I direct that you serve a minimum term of nine (9) years imprisonment before being eligible for release on parole.
49 I declare that there has been 300 days pre-sentence detention already served of the sentences past this day and I direct the 300 days be reckoned as having been served, be entered into the records of the court and be deducted administratively.
50 For the purposes of s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you not pleaded guilty to the charges I would have imposed a total effective sentence of eighteen (18) years imprisonment and I would have fixed a minimum term of fourteen (14) years imprisonment before which you would have been eligible for release on parole.
51 I have been asked to make ancillary disposal orders which were not opposed and I will sign them.
52 HIS HONOUR: Mr Milides, are there any questions arising out of that?
53 MR MILIDES: No, Your Honour - none, sorry.
54 HIS HONOUR: Mr Petric, are you there?
55 MR PETRIC: Yes, Your Honour.
56 HIS HONOUR: Do you have any questions.
57 MR PETRIC: Northing further from the prosecution.
58 HIS HONOUR: Very well. Thank you. Adjourn the court please.
- - -
0
0