R v Chatimba (No 2) - [2021] NSWSC 863

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chatimba (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 863
Hearing dates: 24 June 2021
Date of orders: 16 July 2021
Decision date: 16 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 15 years and 9 months commencing 11 August 2018 and expiring 10 May 2034 and a balance of term of 5 years and 3 months expiring 10 August 2039.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Offender found guilty at trial – Where jury rejected self-defence and excessive self-defence – Stabbing outside home in St Clair – No intention to kill – Assessment of objective seriousness somewhat below the middle of the range – Provocation not established – Prior good character and very limited criminal record – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Acceptance of responsibility for actions and genuine remorse – No special circumstances – Sentence imposed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v RJB [2019] NSWSC 719
R vYavuz (No 6) [2019] NSWSC 95

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Nathan Chatimba (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hatfield (Crown)
A Evers (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bannisters Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/247460

Judgment

On 11 August 2018 at Dutch Place, St Clair, the deceased, Peni Apikotoa, was stabbed in the left upper chest and left shoulder, in the forearms and in the right wrist by Nathan Chatimba. Mr Apikotoa bled profusely and died, outside the door of 1 Dutch Place, before paramedics arrived.
Mr Apikotoa was called Benni by his family and friends. Without disrespect, I shall in these remarks refer to him as Benni as well as Mr Apikotoa. Benni’s death was a tragedy, a very great human tragedy, for his family, his friends and all involved in this sad matter. These remarks, however, must focus on the events of 11 August 2018 and the circumstances in which they occurred as well as the offender’s circumstances. This is not to diminish the importance or value of Mr Apikotoa’s life and I shall return to that matter later in these remarks.
On 6 April 2021, a jury of 12 found Mr Chatimba guilty of Mr Apikotoa’s murder. Mr Chatimba now stands to be sentenced for that offence.
The maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, and there is a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The Crown does not contend that a sentence of imprisonment for life should be imposed. [1] Nor do I consider that a life sentence is warranted in the present case.
1. Under s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
One of my tasks in sentencing the offender is to make findings of fact as to what occurred. These findings must be consistent…

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 Chatimba (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Chatimba (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 863
Case: [2021] NSWSC 863
Decision Date: 16 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chatimba (No 2), the offender was convicted of the murder of a person in St Clair. The offender appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was a term of imprisonment of 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years. The appeal centred on the sentence rather than the conviction itself. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate in all of the circumstances.

The court had to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account the nature of the offence and the mitigating factors presented. The prosecution argued that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the crime, while the defence contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the offender's remorse and prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the crime against the mitigating factors presented by the offender.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The offender had stabbed the victim outside their home, leading to the victim's death, despite the jury rejecting the defence of self-defence and excessive self-defence. The offender had no intention to kill but had committed a serious crime. The court considered the objective seriousness of the crime to be somewhat below the middle of the range, and while provocation was not established, the offender's prior good character and limited criminal record were noted. The offender's acceptance of responsibility, genuine remorse, and good prospects for rehabilitation were also taken into account. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not contain any special circumstances that would warrant a reduction.

No special circumstances were identified that would warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court ultimately determined that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Orders