R v Horton - [2021] VSC 396

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0083

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
JOSHUA HORTON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21, 22 & 23 June 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Horton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 396

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter and intentionally causing serious injury (‘ICSI) – Unprovoked knife attack at bus stop upon brothers aged 17 and 18 – Accused found guilty by jury after trial for murder - Aged 18 at time of crimes and still only 20 – Early offer to plead guilty to manslaughter and ICSI – Serious criminal history – Lack of remorse – Reduced impact of youth – Serious examples of crimes – Denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and protection of community all important sentencing purposes – Total effective sentence of 13 ½ years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 9 ½ years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson QC with Ms S Lenthall	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Norton with Mr J Barrera	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Joshua Horton, by unprovoked, cowardly, brutal and entirely senseless acts of violence, you caused the death of a 17 year old child named Maaka Hakiwai (‘Maaka’) and caused serious injury to his older brother Nathanial Hakiwai (‘Nathanial’). For those acts, you have been found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and intentionally causing serious injury (‘ICSI’).

The maximum penalty for manslaughter at the time of your offence was imprisonment for 20 years. The maximum penalty for ICSI is also 20 years.

Manslaughter and ICSI are both category 2 offences under s 3(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’). This means that pursuant to s 5(2H) of the Act, in sentencing you I am required to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon you in the absence of the application of one of the exceptions contained in parts (a) to (e) of that subsection. It has not been submitted on your behalf that I should do anything other than impose a term of imprisonment and set a non-parole period.

Background

Nathanial was aged 18 at the time of the events. His younger brother Maaka was 17, having celebrated his birthday only ten days before his death. They are the two sons of Stirling and Karli Hakiwai. Mr Hakiwai was from New Zealand of Maori background. He moved to Australia in 1999, meeting his eventual wife shortly after his arrival. They have four children together, the younger two being sisters for Nathanial and Maaka named Leilani and Kiripaeahi.

For some years, the family lived on the Gold Coast while Mr Hakiwai worked in various locations on a fly-in fly-out basis. In May 2019, however, he secured new employment in Melbourne. He relocated here in June 2019, and was joined in turn by Maaka and then Nathanial. It was planned…

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 Horton

Details

AGLC: R v Horton [2021] VSC 396
Case: [2021] VSC 396
Decision Date: 2 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Horton, was found guilty by a jury of murdering his 17-year-old brother and attempting to murder his 18-year-old brother in an unprovoked knife attack at a bus stop. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Horton, who was 18 at the time of the offence and is now 20, had made an early offer to plead guilty to manslaughter and intentionally causing serious injury. The trial judge was required to balance the sentencing principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and protection of the community, while also considering the reduced impact of the offender's youth. The judge also considered Horton's criminal history and lack of remorse.

The primary legal issue was determining the appropriate sentence for the serious nature of the crimes, while also considering the youth of the offender. The court noted that although Horton was young, the gravity of the offences, his criminal history, and lack of remorse reduced the impact of his youth. The court found that a significant sentence was necessary to serve the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. The court also had to determine the appropriate non-parole period, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case before determining that a total effective sentence of 13 ½ years’ imprisonment was appropriate. The non-parole period was set at 9 ½ years’ imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community in reaching its decision.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be imprisoned for a total effective sentence of 13 ½ years, with a non-parole period of 9 ½ years. This sentence reflects the gravity of the offences and the need to serve the purposes of sentencing while also taking into account the youth of the offender.

Orders