R v Latu (No 2)

[2020] ACTSC 160

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Latu (No 2)

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 160

Hearing Dates:

15 April and 19 June 2020

DecisionDate:

19 June 2020

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

The offender is resentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment to be served by way of intensive corrections order with additional conditions.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Resentence – Breach of good behaviour order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 11, 110

Cases Cited:

R v Latu [2019] ACTSC 109

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Isaiah Jordan Latu (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

C Wanigaratne (Crown)

M Jones (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 193 of 2018

MURRELL CJ

1. The offender is before the Court for breaching a good behaviour order associated with a suspended sentence. 

1. On 18 April 2019, I sentenced the offender for the offence that, on 22 October 2017, the offender unlawfully caused grievous bodily harm to Mr Tink: R v Latu [2019] ACTSC 109. This incident occurred in the Civic area. The victim sustained a complex skull fracture. The offender was intoxicated when the incident occurred.

1. I imposed a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, suspended after five months.  The remaining 15 months was suspended on the basis that the offender enter into a two-year good behaviour order from 17 September 2019 to 16 September 2021. The offender was released from custody in September 2019.

1. Unfortunately, on 10 November 2019, he engaged in an assault in Civic.  He was intoxicated.  The assault occurred after he had received and failed to comply with a notice to move on.  The similarity between the original offence and the breach offence is obvious.

1. On 6 April 2020, the Magistrates Court dealt with the offender for the breach offence that occurred on 10 November 2019, and a related offence of failing to obey an exclusion order, imposing fines of $700 and $300 respectively. 

1. Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), I cancel the order and I propose to re-sentence the offender to the portion of the original sentence which has not been served, i.e. 15 months' imprisonment. 

1. A question arises as to the manner in which the new sentence should be served.

1. The offender is a person of great promise in a number of respects.  His employer and mentor, Mr Jones, gave evidence that he has employed the offender since 2018. Apart from the period during which the offender was in custody, Mr Jones has been his rugby union coach since 2017, and has provided him with general guidance and support in a sort of paternal capacity.

1. The offender was raised in very difficult circumstances.  His home life was marred by domestic violence.  In very recent times, his parents have separated, and the family home now provides a much more friendly environment, but when he was raised, brutality was an accepted way of life.  He was raised in fear, and violence was always the response to frustration or conflict.

1. The offender has gained significant insight into the link between alcohol and violence.

1. He has very significant sporting talent and is a rugby union player.  He has been identified as someone with leadership capacity.  Mr Jones stated that he has an excellent work ethic, is very respectful, interacts very well with children and, when not under the influence of alcohol, he is a very gentle and agreeable person.

1. Clearly, the offender needs assistance in relation to underlying issues which have led to criminal conduct.  He has consulted a doctor, who has referred him to a psychologist to deal with some of those issues.

1. The offender is in a supportive situation.  Not only does he have the support of family, including a grandfather who played a very significant role in his upbringing, but he also has the support of a close community of people involved with rugby union who are aware of his history and are prepared to keep away from alcohol abuse.

1. If these subjective features were not apparent, then the offender would be required to serve a significant portion of the outstanding 15 months of the original sentence. However, given the support that he enjoys and the commitment to sobriety that he has demonstrated over the last couple of months, I am prepared to give him a further opportunity.

1. On 19 June 2020, I received the assessment of the offender's suitability for an intensive correction order.  The assessment found the offender to be suitable for such an order.  In the assessment and recommendation section, the reporters state:

Mr Latu maintains full-time employment, stable accommodation and does not have a history of problematic drug use or mental health issues.  While his offending is somewhat serious, he appears to live a mostly pro-social lifestyle and acknowledged that alcohol is a significant contributor to his violent behaviour.  Mr Latu will be referred to undertake treatment to address his alcohol consumption.

1. The report suggests that additional conditions be imposed upon an intensive correction order. 

1. While he is currently abstinent from alcohol, the offender does have a history of alcohol abuse.  That difficulty may be able to be addressed adequately through an intensive correction order and may not require more intensive supervision by the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List. 

Resentence

1. I find that the breach is established, and I cancel the good behaviour order. 

1. The offender is re-sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.

1. I make an order under s 11 of the Sentencing Act that the sentence be served by intensive correction in the community.  I am satisfied of the relevant matters in the Sentencing Act. 

1. I impose the following additional conditions: 

(a)the offender is not to consume any alcohol;

(b)he is not to be in the area of the Canberra City, bordered by Northbourne Avenue, London Circuit, Petrie Plaza and Bunda Street, between the hours of 9 PM and 6 AM;

(c)he is not to be in licensed premises after 9 PM; and

(d)if advised by Corrections, he is to complete the “Preventing Violence, Managing Anger” program at EveryMan Australia. 

1. Mr Latu, I hope you are able to maintain yourself free of offences during the period of this order, because if you were to commit another offence of this type, or any serious offence, it would be more or less unavoidable that you would be sentenced to full-time imprisonment, which I am sure that you wish to avoid. 

I certify that the preceding twenty-two [22] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell.

Associate:

Date: