R v Lutu - [2014] NSWSC 413

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lutu [2014] NSWSC 413
Hearing dates: 14 March 2014
Decision date: 10 April 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Nacanieli Lutu, on your plea of guilty, I convict you of the murder of Salaseini Batirau. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment having a non-parole period of 14 years, commencing on 20th January 2013 and expiring on 19th January 2027 with an additional term of 4 years and 9 months commencing on 20th January 2027 and expiring on 19th October 2031.
The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole is 20th January 2027.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - guilty plea - domestic violence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 19A
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1;
Gore v R; Hunter v R (2010) 208 A Crim R 353; [2010] NSWCCA 330;
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520;
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120:
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102 at [32]
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363;
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76;
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Nacanieli Lutu (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
C Loukas SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitors for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/223921

Judgment

The offender was arraigned before me on 14 March 2014 on the charge of murdering his wife Salaseini Batirau on Sunday 20th January 2013. From the day he committed it, he has admitted responsibility for the crime. He indicated he would enter a plea of guilty at the first opportunity available to him when the matter was before the Local Court.

My task today is to sentence him for this offence.

The facts relevant to the offending have been agreed between the Crown and the offender and my findings for the purpose of sentencing will be based on them.

In summary, the offender murdered Ms Batirau by stabbing her repeatedly in the neck and chest during a domestic argument. Their three children were at home and witnessed the attack.

The marital relationship

The offender and Ms Batirau were both from Fiji. The offender was born and raised on the fire walking island of Beqa (pronounced Benga). He and his wife met when she was posted there to work as a nurse. They formed their relationship there, and migrated to Australia about six years ago to reunite with Ms Batirau's family, who had migrated earlier.

Ms Batirau came here first with the idea of requalifying as a nurse in this country. That…

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 Lutu

Details

AGLC: R v Lutu [2014] NSWSC 413
Case: [2014] NSWSC 413
Decision Date: 10 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lutu was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Lutu was charged with the murder of his partner, which occurred in the context of domestic violence. Lutu entered a guilty plea for the lesser included charge of manslaughter, which was accepted by the prosecution. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Lutu, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Lutu, given the mitigating factors of his guilty plea, the context of domestic violence, and the circumstances leading to the death of the victim. The court had to balance these factors against the gravity of the crime and the need for general deterrence.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors, including Lutu's early guilty plea and the context of domestic violence. However, the court also emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need to ensure general deterrence. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of 14 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years, was appropriate. The court considered this sentence to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence while also taking into account the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders