R v Halatoa - [2019] NSWDC 140

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Halatoa [2019] NSWDC 140
Hearing dates: 4 February 2019
Decision date: 04 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Offender sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years 10 months with a non parole period of 4 years 4 months

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW- aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 112(2)
Cases Cited: R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 422; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Ricky Halatoa (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Anderson (Solicitor)
Ms Kim (Solicitor)

File Number(s): 2017/384322
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Ricky Halatoa, you appear for sentence today in relation to one offence: that is, aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence - the serious indictable offence was larcency.
This involves a contravention of s 112(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years' imprisonment. There is a standard non‑parole period of five years' imprisonment. There is also a relevant guideline judgment of R v Ponfield.
The facts surrounding your offending are contained in an agreed statement of facts. Slightly recast by me as to style but not substance, they are as follows.
As at 5 October 2017, you had been on parole for 4 weeks and, as at that date and whilst on parole, you had committed six previous offences of break and enter.
On 5 October 2017 you were, and went, near home unit premises in Wentworthville. Mrs Chatri lived in a unit in that complex with her husband, two children, and a nephew.
Normally the home unit, at least during the week, was unoccupied because the usual occupants were either working or studying at university.
At about a quarter past 1 in the afternoon, Mrs Chatri returned to her home. You had been there whilst she was out ‑ in fact, you were still there. You had forced your way in, through the back of the house, and you had a 15‑centimetre knife with you.
Whilst you were in the home unit, and before she returned, you went to Mrs Chatri's bedroom and to the bedroom of one of her adult children.
Mrs Chatri confronted you in her house. Her age is not revealed in the material before me. But, whatever her age, being confronted in your own home, where you are entitled to feel safe and secure, by a man holding a 15‑centimetre knife would no doubt have been a terrifying experience for her.
You walked past her, still holding the knife (but not in an overtly aggressive fashion) and you left the home unit, through the front door. You had stolen jewellery, the approximate commercial value of which was $4,500. That jewellery has never been returned to its rightful owner.
In terms of the objective seriousness of this offence, for an offence of its kind, it is below a midrange offence but not at the bottom of the…

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 Halatoa

Details

AGLC: R v Halatoa [2019] NSWDC 140
Case: [2019] NSWDC 140
Decision Date: 04 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Halatoa was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Halatoa, stood accused of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence. The defendant had allegedly broken into a residence, threatened the occupants, and committed a serious indictable offence during the course of the break-in. The prosecution sought to establish the elements of the charge, including the unlawful entry, the accompanying threats, and the gravity of the offence committed during the break-in.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had successfully proven each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This included establishing that the defendant had unlawfully entered the premises, that he had done so with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence, and that he had indeed committed such an offence. The court also had to consider whether the defendant’s actions amounted to an aggravated break and enter, which required additional factors such as the use of violence or threats during the commission of the crime. The defence argued that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to meet the required standard of proof.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had successfully proven all the elements of the charge. The defendant’s unlawful entry, the accompanying threats, and the serious indictable offence committed were all established to the satisfaction of the court. The court emphasised the severity of the defendant’s actions, noting the threats made to the occupants and the nature of the offence committed. Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of the aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 5 years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 4 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offender sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years 10 months with a non parole period of 4 years 4 months

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Halatoa [2019] NSWDC 140
Hearing dates:	4 February 2019
Decision date:	04 February 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Offender sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years 10 months with a non parole period of 4 years 4 months
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW- aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 112(2)
Cases Cited:	R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 422; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Ricky Halatoa (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Anderson (Solicitor) Ms Kim (Solicitor)
File Number(s):	2017/384322
Publication restriction:	Nil