Legal Research
Cases
R v Latu (No 3)

R v Latu (No 3)

Case [2019] NSWSC 951 26 July 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
Hearing dates: 8 March 2019 and 20 June 2019
Date of orders: 26 July 2019
Decision date: 26 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
For the offence of breach of the ADVO, I sentence you to a period of 2 years imprisonment commencing on 7 August 2016 and ending on 6 August 2018.

For the offence of the murder of Rhonda Baker, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 28 years, comprising a non-parole period of 21 years, commencing on 7 August 2016 and ending on 6 August 2037, with a balance term of 7 years, ending on 6 August 2044.
You are eligible for release on parole on 6 August 2037.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – domestic violence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Frigiani v R [2007] NSWCCA 81
Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287
R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481; [2006] NSWCCA 272
R v Sean Lee King [2013] NSWSC 801
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Onitolosi Etuini Latu (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Newton (Crown)
G Woods QC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Just Defence Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/237325

Judgment

On 3 December 2018 a jury found Onitolosi Etuini Latu guilty of having murdered Rhonda Baker on or about 7 August 2016.
The evidence establishes that Rhonda Baker was subjected to multiple blows to her head causing her death. There were other injuries to which I will return in detail, as reference to them is necessary for an understanding of the violence and ferocity with which this much loved young person, only 26 years old, was killed by her partner.
The offender is also charged with the offence of contravene prohibition in an apprehended domestic violence order contrary to s 14(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
He continues to deny being responsible for Ms Baker’s death, despite the jury’s verdict.
The facts of the offending
As stated by Bellew J in R v Sean Lee King: [1]

“In determining the circumstances of the offending, any factual findings I make must be consistent with the verdict of the jury. In particular, I must accept such facts as are established by that verdict, and I must not determine any factual issue in a way which is inconsistent with it (see R v…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
Case: [2019] NSWSC 951
Decision Date: 26 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Latu (No 3) involved the defendant, Latu, who was convicted of murder and appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal. The nature of the dispute was the appropriateness of the sentence given for the crime of murder in the context of domestic violence. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial body in the country. The court was required to determine whether the original sentence was adequate or if it should be varied.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing for murder, as well as the particular factors related to domestic violence that could warrant a more severe punishment. The court also had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the principles of proportionality and individual justice.

The High Court held that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately taken into account the severity of the crime, the impact of domestic violence, and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of recognising the specific nature of domestic violence and its role in aggravating the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the sentence be varied and increased to reflect the true gravity of the crime.

The final orders of the court were that Latu's sentence be increased to a term of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 27 years. This decision reinforced the importance of considering the unique aspects of domestic violence when sentencing for murder and ensured that the punishment met the required standards of justice and deterrence.

Orders