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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Latu (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 160
Case: [2020] ACTSC 160
Decision Date: 19 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Latu, the defendant was convicted of breaching a good behaviour order. This breach arose from the defendant's failure to comply with certain conditions imposed by the court following a previous conviction. The matter was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the defendant challenged the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the resentence proposed by the Crown was appropriate. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature and circumstances of the breach, and the defendant's background and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate, taking into account the seriousness of the breach and the defendant's criminal history. The court noted that the breach involved a significant failure to comply with the conditions of a good behaviour order, which was intended to prevent further criminal conduct. The court also considered the defendant's previous convictions and the need to deter future offending. After reviewing the submissions from both parties, the court determined that a resentence of 15 months' imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order with additional conditions, was appropriate. This resentence aimed to address the defendant's offending behaviour, promote rehabilitation, and provide adequate deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

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.