R v Lefau - [2004] VSC 481

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1501 of 2004

THE QUEEN

ANISETO LEFAU

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 October 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 November 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lefau
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 481

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter of child – Child struck once – Internal injury- Plea of guilty – Remorse – Eight years’ imprisonment – Minimum five years and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms G. Cannon	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S.T. Russell	Leanne Warren and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Aniseto Lefau, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter at Melbourne on Wednesday 1 October 2003 of Cecilia Tuliloa. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment.

Cecilia Tuliloa was born on 5 April 2002. Accordingly, at the time of her death she was a 15 month old infant. You were at the time 41 years of age, strong and powerful.

You killed Cecilia by striking her in the abdominal area. The circumstances under which this occurred are as follows. Cecilia’s natural parents were Pauline Nimo and Andrew Tuliloa. Her natural parents separated in December 2002 and soon thereafter you commenced a relationship with Pauline Nimo and you and she moved to Melbourne from Sydney, where you had both lived previously. You had three children aged 14, 6 and 4 from a previous marriage which had ended with the tragic death of your wife in 2002. You and Pauline Nimo commenced to live in Epping in about January 2003 with your three children and two of her three children, one of whom was Cecilia.

On the evening of Tuesday 30 September 2003 you, together with Pauline Nimo and the children, were at home watching television. The children were put to bed in the course of that evening. Throughout the evening you were consuming alcohol and later on Ms Nimo informed police that you had consumed nine or ten stubbies of Carlton Cold beer throughout the evening.

After the children fell asleep you and Ms Nimo decided to go to a local petrol station to get some money from an automatic teller machine at that station. You left the children alone in the house. You went to the nearby service station and found that there was no money in the account which you endeavoured to access. You then had difficulty restarting the car in which you had driven to the petrol station. A motorist who was also at the service station offered you a lift home. You accepted his offer. You left Pauline Nimo at the service station.

You went home and found a key which you believed would start the car. At about this time Cecilia awoke. You picked her up and took her outside with you. She was crying. As she continued to cry you struck her in the stomach region. You then…

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 Lefau

Details

AGLC: R v Lefau [2004] VSC 481
Case: [2004] VSC 481
Decision Date: 29 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lefau dealt with the sentencing of the appellant for the manslaughter of his child. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate custodial sentence for the offence, which occurred when the appellant struck the child, leading to a fatal internal injury. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and demonstrated remorse, which was a mitigating factor in the sentencing considerations. The Crown had sought a sentence of eight years' imprisonment, while the defence argued for a lesser term, citing the appellant's remorse and the fact that the incident was an isolated, tragic event. The court was required to balance these factors against the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the appropriate weight to be given to the mitigating factors of remorse and the fact that the incident was a single, tragic event, against the severity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court considered the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, the role of remorse in reducing the sentence, and the necessity to ensure sentences reflect the gravity of offences involving the death of a child. The court also examined the statutory framework and relevant case law to determine the appropriate starting point and the overall sentence.

The court determined that while the appellant's remorse and the isolated nature of the incident were significant mitigating factors, they could not entirely outweigh the gravity of the offence. The court held that the appellant's actions resulted in the death of his child, which demanded a substantial custodial sentence. After weighing all the factors, the court concluded that an eight-year imprisonment term was appropriate, with a minimum non-parole period of five years and six months. This sentence reflected the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system and to provide adequate deterrence against similar offences.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to a total imprisonment term of eight years, with a non-parole period of five years and six months. This decision recognised the mitigating factors of the case but also emphasised the need for a sentence that appropriately reflected the seriousness of the manslaughter of a child. The court's ruling aimed to balance the appellant's remorse and the tragic nature of the incident with the imperative to ensure justice and deterrence.

Orders