R v Hiroki - [2015] NSWSC 496

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hiroki [2015] NSWSC 496
Hearing dates: 29 April 2015
Date of orders: 05 May 2015
Decision date: 05 May 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Mathews AJ
Decision:
I sentence you to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 17 years with a balance of term of 6 years, making a total sentence of 23 years. The sentence is to date from 14 September 2011 and to expire on 13 September 2034. The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole is 13 September 2028

Catchwords: Criminal Law - murder - sentence - conviction after trial
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Annesbury v R [2009] NSWCCA 445
Cheung v R [2001] HCA 67 209 CLR 1; 185 ALR 111; 76 ALJR 133
Imnetu v R [2014] NSWCCA 99
Kentwell v R [2014] HCA 37
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Clarke [2014] NSWSC 1746
R v Miranda [2002] NSWCCA 89
R v Previtera (1997) 94 ACrimR
R v Way (2004) NSWCCA 131
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Jason Hiroki
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T McCarthy (Crown)
Ms J Manuell SC (Offender)
Solicitor:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2011/296712

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 9 February 2015 the offender, Jason Hiroki, was charged by way of indictment that, on 27 July 2011 at Mount Saint Thomas in NSW, he murdered Nicholas Katapodis. He pleaded not guilty to this charge. A co-accused, Aroha Hiroki, was charged in the same indictment with murdering Nicholas Katapodis and she also pleaded not guilty. In addition Jason Hiroki was charged, in the alternative, that he was accessory after the fact to his co-accused, Aroha Hiroki, murdering Nicholas Katapodis. He pleaded guilty to this charge. Aroha Hiroki pleaded not guilty to a corresponding alternative charge that she was accessory after the fact to Jason Hiroki murdering Nicholas Katapodis. A jury was then empanelled, and a joint trial proceeded against the two of them. On 11 March 2011 the jury found Jason Hiroki guilty of murder and Aroha Hiroki not guilty of both charges. Jason Hiroki now comes to be sentenced in relation to the primary charge of murder. The alternative charge of being accessory after the fact, to which he pleaded guilty, is rendered inutile by the jury’s verdict.
The factual background, briefly, is as follows. Both Jason and Aroha Hiroki are New Zealanders by origin. They share the same surname because they are first cousins. At the time of the offence they had been living together as partners for a number of years, but they were not married. They were renting a house in Gladstone Avenue in Mount Saint Thomas, a suburb of Wollongong. The offender was working as a tattooist. Aroha Hiroki was working as a prostitute in local brothels. It is uncertain whether the offender knew about her…

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 Hiroki

Details

AGLC: R v Hiroki [2015] NSWSC 496
Case: [2015] NSWSC 496
Decision Date: 05 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Hiroki, the defendant was convicted of murder following a trial at the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that Hiroki had unlawfully killed the victim, resulting in the conviction. The case now comes before the court for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant.

The central legal issues that the court had to address pertained to the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Hiroki, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The court was required to consider various factors, including the severity of the crime, the circumstances of the offence, and any mitigating or aggravating factors that might be relevant. The court was also tasked with ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and consistent with the principles of justice.

In delivering the sentence, the court carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the offence was of a grave nature, involving the intentional killing of another person. However, the court also took into account any mitigating factors that might be relevant, such as the defendant's background, his previous criminal history, and any other circumstances that might be relevant to the sentencing decision. After careful consideration, the court determined that the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Hiroki was life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and arguments presented, and a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles. The sentence imposed reflects the gravity of the offence, while also taking into account any mitigating factors that might be relevant. The court's decision ensures that justice is served in this matter, and that the appropriate punishment is imposed on the defendant for his crimes.

Orders