R v Naquita Heaki

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read

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

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWDC 296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Naquita Heaki against her conviction and sentence in the County Court of Victoria was heard in the Court of Appeal. Heaki had been found guilty of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to another person and of damaging property valued at less than $2000. Heaki appealed the conviction and the sentence on the grounds that they were manifestly unsafe and unreasonable, and that the sentence was excessive and did not reflect the principle of parity in sentencing.

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.