Legal Research
Cases
DPP (Cth) v Haunga

DPP (Cth) v Haunga

Case [2001] VSCA 73 28 May 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 265 of 2000

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
	Appellant
v.
DARREN PATRICK HAUNGA
	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TADGELL, CALLAWAY and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 73

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Crown appeal – Sentence at first instance reduced upon offender’s sworn undertaking to co-operate with law enforcement agencies by testifying against accomplice – Later partial repudiation of undertaking rendering original sentence inadequate – Substitution of appropriate sentence on appeal by Crown – Whether sentence for contempt for refusal to testify at trial of accomplice to be taken into account – Totality.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.21E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.R. Champion	Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For the Respondent	Mr N. Papas	Victoria Legal Aid

TADGELL, J.A.:

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appeals in reliance on s.21E(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 against the inadequacy of a sentence passed on the respondent in the County Court, being of opinion that the appeal should be brought in the interests of the administration of justice. The gist of the appellant’s complaint is that the respondent received a reduced sentence on the footing that he undertook to give evidence for the Crown against a co-offender, one O’Neill, and that, when the time arrived for him to give his evidence at O’Neill’s trial, he refused without reasonable excuse to do so.

The sentence now complained of followed the respondent’s plea of guilty in the County Court on 10 June 1999 to one count of being knowingly concerned in the importation of a prohibited import, namely amphetamine, contrary to s.233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901. After a plea in mitigation, upon which he gave his undertaking on oath to co-operate with the Crown, he was sentenced by Judge Keon-Cohen on 10 June 1999 to be imprisoned for three years. His Honour made a recognizance release order conformably with s.19AC of the Crimes Act 1914, ordering pursuant to s.20(1)(b) that, upon entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for twelve months, the respondent be released after serving twenty-four months of the sentence. In passing sentence the learned judge said –

“Were it not for the future co-operation promised by the prisoner, I would have imposed a sentence of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years. However, by reason of the provisions of section 21E of the Act, I state that I have reduced both the sentence and the non-parole period.”

As appears, his Honour tended to equate the period stipulated in the recognizance release order (specified and defined in s. 16(1) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act as the “pre-release period”) with a non-parole period. The minor mis-use of terms was of no significance but I mention it now having regard to an argument put on behalf of the respondent, to which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP (Cth) v Haunga

Details

AGLC: DPP (Cth) v Haunga [2001] VSCA 73
Case: [2001] VSCA 73
Decision Date: 28 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Commonwealth (DPP) versus Haunga came before the court for the purpose of reviewing a sentence that had been passed in the first instance. The defendant, Haunga, had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and, in exchange for a reduced sentence, had made a sworn undertaking to cooperate with law enforcement by testifying against his accomplice. However, Haunga later partially repudiated this undertaking, leading the Crown to appeal the sentence on the grounds that it was inadequate. The court was required to determine whether the original sentence, which had been reduced based on the defendant's promise to testify, should be reconsidered in light of his subsequent refusal to do so. Additionally, the court needed to address the issue of whether a sentence for contempt, imposed for Haunga's refusal to testify at the trial of his accomplice, should be factored into the overall sentence.

The court deliberated on the legal principles relevant to the sentencing and the appropriate response to Haunga's breach of his sworn undertaking. It considered the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation, and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court recognised that the original sentence had been premised on Haunga's promise to assist law enforcement, a promise which he had failed to honour. Consequently, the Crown argued that the sentence should be reconsidered to reflect the true nature of Haunga's conduct and the need to uphold the administration of justice. The court also examined the question of whether the sentence for contempt should be integrated into the overall sentence or whether it should be served concurrently or consecutively. Ultimately, the court found that the original sentence was inadequate and substituted a more appropriate sentence that took into account Haunga's breach of his undertaking and the contempt sentence.

The court concluded that the original sentence was insufficient given Haunga's failure to cooperate as promised. It held that the Crown was entitled to appeal and substitute a sentence that more accurately reflected the seriousness of Haunga's conduct. The court determined that the contempt sentence should be factored into the overall sentence and ordered that it be served consecutively to the new sentence imposed for the original offence. This decision ensures that Haunga's actions are properly punished and that the integrity of the judicial process is upheld. The court's ruling reflects the importance of holding offenders accountable for their promises and the need to impose sentences that are commensurate with the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders