R v Baleinapuka - [2022] NSWSC 485

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Baleinapuka [2022] NSWSC 485
Hearing dates: 22 April 2022
Date of orders: 22 April 2022
Decision date: 22 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 26 years and 8 months comprising a non-parole period of 20 years commencing on 1 January 2020 and expiring on 31 December 2039 and a balance of term of 6 years and 8 months expiring on 31 August 2046.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence - murder of female partner – 14 stab wounds inflicted in prolonged attack – intent to kill – ongoing denial of guilt

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Petero Baleinapuka
Representation:
Counsel:
D Scully (Crown)
P Young SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
De Jonge Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/000515
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Petero Baleinapuka was arraigned before me at Wollongong on 18 January 2022 on a charge that on 31 December 2019 at Woonona he did murder Angela O'Donnell. He pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury. Their verdict of guilty was returned on 27 January 2022 after an hour and ten minutes of deliberation. The maximum penalty for murder is imprisonment for life and the Court is required to take into account that Parliament has nominated a standard non‑parole period of 20 years. The level of the offender's culpability in the murder of Ms O'Donnell is not so extreme as to require that the maximum sentence of imprisonment for life be imposed. The Court's task is to fix a term of years appropriate to the gravity of this crime, with its aggravating and mitigating features, taking into account the personal circumstances of the offender.
I am satisfied that the findings I now record and which will be taken into consideration in the sentence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt in all respects where the findings count towards greater penalty. Where factual findings would mitigate the sentence, I have adopted them insofar as I find the matters proved on the balance of probabilities.
Ms O'Donnell met the offender at Parramatta in 2017. At that time she was aged about 49 years and the offender was 53. Ms O'Donnell had been married but had separated several years before. She was living at Glenhaven in the northeast part of the Sydney Metropolitan area. The offender was then living at Campsie. He is a Fijian national from a rural village where he was raised and where he worked on his father's farm all of his adult life until he came to Australia on a work visa in 2015.
Soon after their meeting Ms O'Donnell and the offender commenced a personal relationship. He stayed at her house at Glenhaven on most weekends. By 2019 Ms O'Donnell had moved to a three bedroom, two storey townhouse in Campbell Street, Woonona, a northern suburb of Wollongong. She lived there alone until some date between about…

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 R v Baleinapuka

Details

AGLC: R v Baleinapuka [2022] NSWSC 485
Case: [2022] NSWSC 485
Decision Date: 22 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baleinapuka involved the defendant, Baleinapuka, who was charged with the murder of his female partner. The victim was found with 14 stab wounds inflicted in a prolonged attack. Baleinapuka denied the charge, claiming he acted in self-defence, but the prosecution argued for a premeditated and intentional killing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether Baleinapuka intended to kill the victim. The court had to consider the severity and number of the stab wounds, the prolonged nature of the attack, and the defendant's ongoing denial of guilt. Additionally, the court examined whether the defence of self-defence was plausible given the evidence presented. The prosecution argued that the number and severity of the wounds indicated a deliberate intent to kill, while the defence contended that the attack was in self-defence.

The court found that the evidence pointed to a deliberate and premeditated attack, with the number and severity of the stab wounds being inconsistent with a claim of self-defence. The court concluded that Baleinapuka's denial of guilt and the circumstances of the attack supported an intention to kill. The court dismissed the defence of self-defence and found Baleinapuka guilty of murder. The court considered the gravity of the crime and the need for punishment and deterrence in arriving at its decision.

Baleinapuka was sentenced to life imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need to protect society from the defendant. The court emphasised the importance of sending a strong message about the consequences of such heinous acts. The sentence also considered the need for rehabilitation, although the court noted the significant challenge given the nature of the crime.

Orders