R v Mamae - [2001] NSWSC 936

CITATION: R v Mamae [2001] NSWSC 936 revised - 24/10/2001

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC SC 70029/01

HEARING DATE(S): 03/09/01-14/09/01,4/10/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 October 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Junior Vaa Mamae

JUDGMENT OF: Taylor AJ at 1

COUNSEL : Mr B Newport QC (Crown)
Mr M Ainsworth (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Mr B Royce DPP (Crown)
Nikola Velcic & Associates (Offender)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - manslaughter - joint criminal enterprise - lesser role in the attack - special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Section 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure ) Act

CASES CITED: R v Veech (2001) NSWSC 68
R v Blacklidge NSWCCA 12 December 1995 at 4
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 at 402

DECISION: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years to date from 13 July 2001. I set a non-parole period of four years to commence on 13 July 2001 and to conclude on 12 July 2005, when the prisoner is eligible to be considered for release to parole.

- 7 -

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

TAYLOR AJ

070029/01 - REGINA v JUNIOR VAA MAMAE

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 3 September 2001 the offender was arraigned at this Court on a charge of murder and, in the alternative, aggravated assault with intent to rob. The offences alleged occurred at St Mary's on 15 July 2000 when Mr Pieter Hage was attacked whilst walking home in the early hours of the morning.

2 The offender put himself at the scene of the crime, but denied any involvement. He attributed the attack to his companion, Jason Young. That offender was sentenced by me on 3 September last in circumstances that are detailed later in these remarks.

3 The jury in Junior Mamae's trial was instructed that the crime of murder is committed when the act of an accused which caused the death of the deceased was done by him during or immediately after the commission by that accused or by some accomplice with him to the crime of aggravated assault with intent to rob with wounding. Before returning a verdict of guilty to murder, it was essential that the Crown prove that there was a joint criminal enterprise between the offender and Jason Young to attack Mr Hage. The jury was also instructed that an alternative verdict of manslaughter should be returned if, taken with other elements that are not relevant at the moment, they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Jason Young and the accused jointly attacked Mr Hage at St Mary's on 15 July 2000 and that the assault upon Mr Hage was unlawful and dangerous.

4 During the trial it became clear that there was no issue that the death of the victim resulted from the attack upon him. As any verdict of guilty for the felony of murder necessarily involves consideration of the second count, it would have been too confusing for the jury to be left with…

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 Mamae

Details

AGLC: R v Mamae [2001] NSWSC 936
Case: [2001] NSWSC 936
Decision Date: 4 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mamae, the appellant stood before the court facing charges related to a violent attack that resulted in the death of the victim. The circumstances of the incident involved a joint criminal enterprise where the appellant was alleged to have played a lesser role in the assault. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant given the nature and extent of their involvement.

The central legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentence for the appellant considering their role in the attack, and whether special circumstances existed that could influence the sentencing. The court needed to assess the degree of the appellant's culpability within the joint criminal enterprise and how that should impact the final sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any special circumstances, such as the appellant's background or the nature of their participation, warranted a deviation from the standard sentencing guidelines.

The court, in delivering its judgment, acknowledged the appellant's lesser role in the attack and the mitigating factors presented. The court recognised that while the appellant was part of the joint criminal enterprise, their contribution to the assault was not as significant as that of the other participants. The court also considered the special circumstances, which included the appellant's background and the nature of their involvement. Based on these considerations, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the appellant's reduced culpability and the special circumstances. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that was deemed appropriate given the appellant's role and the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a specific sentence for the appellant, taking into account their lesser role in the joint criminal enterprise and the special circumstances identified during the proceedings. The court's decision provided clarity on how such factors should be weighed in sentencing within the context of joint criminal enterprises.

Orders