SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Folauhola |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 107 |
Hearing Dates: | 8 February, 24 April 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 2 May 2019 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | See [73]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – firearms offences - possession of prohibited firearms – additional offences – pleas of guilty – intensive corrections order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 194 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 11, 33, 57 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) (NSW) s 22 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) ss 42, 43, 180, 249 |
Cases Cited: | Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Heard v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 6 Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 R v Carmody (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 60 R v Pattman; R v Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331 R v Hill (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 4 September 2012) R v Hughes (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 8 August 2013) R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Ilifeleti Folauhola (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms McFarland (Crown) Mr Saddik (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT DPP (Crown) Karnib Saddik (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 307 of 2018; SCC 308 of 2018 |
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J
Introduction
On 6 December 2018, Ilifeleti Folauhola (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(a)Unauthorised possession of a firearm contrary to section s 43(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (Firearms Act) (CC2018/9979). The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment; and
(b)Unauthorised possession of prohibited firearms contrary to s 42(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act (CC2018/14482). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.
In sentencing for the offence of possession of prohibited firearms, the offender has asked the Court to take into account certain additional offences, namely:
(a)Failure to comply with storage requirements for a prohibited firearm contrary to s 180(1)(a)(i) of the Firearms Act (CC2018/14483). The maximum penalty for that offence is 2 years imprisonment;
(b)Failure to comply with storage requirements for a firearm contrary to s 180(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act (CC2018/9980). The maximum penalty for that offence is 1 year imprisonment; and
(c)Unauthorised possession of ammunition contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act (CC2018/14484) The maximum penalty for that offence is a penalty of…
Continue reading R v Folauhola
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Folauhola [2019] ACTSC 107
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the application and appropriateness of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) for the specified firearms offences. The court needed to weigh the principles of deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment against the individual circumstances of the offender and the nature of the offences. Additionally, the court examined whether the intensive corrections order was an adequate response to the seriousness of the crimes committed, considering both the public interest and the appellant’s potential for rehabilitation.
In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the severity of the firearms offences and the need for a sentence that effectively balances punishment and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving prohibited firearms, while also considering the appellant's guilty plea and potential for reform. The court concluded that an intensive corrections order was appropriate, given the appellant’s background and the likelihood of rehabilitation through structured community-based supervision. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of an intensive corrections order was upheld.
The final orders of the court were detailed in [73], affirming the imposition of an intensive corrections order as the sentence for the appellant’s firearms offences. The court’s decision underscored the importance of tailored sentencing that addresses both the severity of the crime and the potential for the offender’s rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [73].
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.