District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Naquita Heaki [2021] NSWDC 296 Hearing dates: 4 June 2021 Decision date: 02 July 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: For orders see [137]
Catchwords: One count of reckless grievous bodily harm; one count of destroy or damage property less than $2000 in value; parity in sentencing.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Brown v R [2020] NSWCCA 132
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crime R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 224 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Rhodes [2017] NSWSC 694
R v Tuhakaraina [2016] NSWCCA 81
Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
Waters v R [2007] NSWCCA 209
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Naquita Heaki (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
K McKenzie (Crown)
S Climo (Offender)
File Number(s): 20/126947
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
-
The offender is to be sentenced for one count of reckless grievous bodily harm in company pursuant to s 35(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 for an offence that occurred on 26 April 2020. The maximum penalty for the offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.
-
A related offence pursuant to a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 is sequence 2, destroy or damage property less than $2000. The maximum penalty for that offence is two years imprisonment and/or a fine of 20 penalty units.
-
The offender was arrested on 26 April 2020. She was in custody from 26 April 2020 until 16 September 2020 when she was released on bail. She was born on 19 February 1989 and the co-offender was Tongia Halisi Heaki, her husband.
The sentence hearing
-
The sentence hearing took place on 4 June 2021. The Crown sentence summary became Ex A, and it included an agreed statement of facts which may be summarised as follows.
-
The offender and her husband lived in premises at Hurstville with their three children aged between four and nine years of age. On the evening of Saturday 25 April 2020 the offender’s sister, Eryka Hakaraia arrived to babysit the three children overnight.
-
The next morning the offender and co-offender returned home. At approximately 9am, Eryka observed the offender to be in an agitated state. The offender told Eryka that the co-offender was concerned that something had happened to their friend Astrid and that they were trying to contact Astrid but that she was not responding. Thereafter, Eryka observed both the offender and co-offender to engage in manic…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Naquita Heaki and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 296
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal raised issues concerning the adequacy of the evidence to support the conviction, the proportionality of the sentence, and the application of the principle of parity in sentencing. The court examined the evidence presented at trial to determine whether it was sufficient to support the conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and whether it complied with the principle of parity, which requires that similar offences be punished similarly.
The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences committed. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances when sentencing, including the impact of the offences on the victims. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.
The court made no orders altering the conviction or sentence. The original decision of the County Court was affirmed, and Heaki remains convicted of the offences and subject to the original sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
For orders see [137]
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.