R v Latu - [2019] ACTSC 109

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Latu
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 109
Hearing Date:	17-18 April 2019
DecisionDate:	18 April 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment to be suspended after five months, on a good behaviour order for two years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Causing grievous bodily harm – Where the offence involves a one-punch assault – Where the offence was committed with a co-offender – Parity of sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 25 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 108, 109 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 17(2)(b), 33, 35
Cases Cited:	Field v Unas [2019] ACTSC 13 R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63; 121 A Crim R 185 R v Byrne [2015] ACTSC 113 R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v Tonga [2015] ACTSC 365
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Isaiah Jordan Latu (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms V Conliffe (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Armstrong Legal (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 193 of 2018; SCC 194 of 2018

Murrell CJ

The offender is to be sentenced for the offence that on 22 October 2017, by an unlawful or negligent act or omission, he caused grievous bodily harm to Matthew David Tink.

This is an offence against s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). It carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

In sentencing the offender, the court is to take into account the additional offence that, on 22 October 2017, the offender assaulted Mr Robertson. When separately charged, the offence of common assault carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

Further, pursuant to ss 108 and 109 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the Court is asked to consider the breach of a good behaviour order under s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). That order was imposed by the Magistrates Court on 16 March 2017, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm that had occurred on 9 December 2016.

The events of 22 October 2017 had a catastrophic impact on the primary victim, Mr Tink, and the Court acknowledges his significant suffering.

Pleas

The original indictment charged reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm to Mr Tink (causing grievous bodily harm by unlawful or negligent act or omission was charged in the alternative), assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Nesbitt and common assault to Mr Robertson (as a transferred charge).

On 21 November 2018, following a criminal case conference and before the matter was listed for trial, the prosecution accepted a plea of guilty to the alternative charge, determined not to proceed with the charge concerning Mr Nesbitt and agreed that the transferred charge should be taken into account when the court was sentencing the offender on the alternative charge.

In these circumstances, the appropriate…

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 Latu

Details

AGLC: R v Latu [2019] ACTSC 109
Case: [2019] ACTSC 109
Decision Date: 18 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Latu, appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales, which found him guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case involved a one-punch assault, where the appellant acted in concert with a co-offender. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment, while the co-offender received a lesser sentence. The appellant argued that the disparity in their sentences warranted a review.

The court needed to determine whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The appeal hinged on whether the sentencing judge had failed to consider the principles of parity in sentencing between co-offenders. The court examined the circumstances of the offence and the sentences imposed on both offenders to assess whether the appellant's sentence was appropriate.

The court found that while the appellant's actions were reprehensible, the disparity in sentencing between him and his co-offender was not so significant as to warrant an appeal against the sentence. The court considered the appellant's background, the nature of the assault, and the principles of parity in sentencing. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The appellant's sentence was varied to a total of 20 months' imprisonment, suspended after five months, and a good behaviour order for two years. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was altered to reflect the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment to be suspended after five months, on a good behaviour order for two years.

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.