R v Natuba; R v Tamapua - [2012] NSWSC 1569

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Natuba; R v Tamapua [2012] NSWSC 1569
Hearing dates: 1 November 2012, 2 November 2012
Decision date: 13 December 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Natuba
For the offence of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon committed at Warwick Farm on 1 July 2010, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of three years and nine months commencing on 2 July 2010 and expiring on 1 April 2014, with a balance of term of one year and three months commencing on 2 April 2014 and expiring on 1 July 2015.
For the offence of murder of Kesley Burgess at Lurnea on 1 July 2010, taking into account the offence on the Form 1, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 10 years commencing on 2 July 2011 and expiring on 1 July 2021, with a balance of term of four years commencing on 2 July 2021 and expiring on 1 July 2025.
The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole is 1 July 2021.
Tamapua
For the offence of specially aggravated break, enter and steal committed at Ashcroft on 29 June 2010, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of three years commencing on 26 March 2011 and expiring on 25 March 2014 with a balance of term of one year commencing on 26 March 2014 and expiring on 25 March 2015.
For the offence of possession of an unauthorised firearm, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years commencing on 26 September 2011 and expiring on 25 September 2013, with a balance of term of one year commencing on 26 September 2013 and expiring on 25 September 2014.
For the offence of possession of an offensive weapon in company with intent to commit an indictable offence, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a fixed term of imprisonment for two years commencing on 26 September 2011 and expiring on 25 September 2013.
For the murder of Kesley Burgess at Lurnea on 1 July 2010, taking into account the offences on the Form 1, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 10 years, commencing on 26 September 2012 and expiring on 25 September 2022 with a balance of term of four years commencing on 26 September 2022 and expiring on 25 September 2026.
The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole is 25 September 2022.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - specially aggravated break, enter and steal - armed robbery - home invasions committed over three-day period - young offenders armed with meat cleavers - occupant at one home seriously injured - occupant of another house killed while resisting offenders - relevance of youth - importance of general deterrence and need for punishment - assistance to authorities - undertaking by Offenders to give evidence against co-accused - discount on sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Firearms Act 1996
Crimes (Sentencing…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Natuba; R v Tamapua 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: [2012] NSWSC 1569
Decision Date: 13 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved two defendants, Natuba and Tamapua, who were charged with various offences, including murder and armed robbery, following a series of home invasions over a three-day period. The crimes were committed while the defendants were armed with meat cleavers, resulting in serious injuries and one fatality. The defendants pleaded guilty to their charges and sought a discount on their sentences due to their youth and their decision to assist the authorities by providing evidence against their co-accused. The court was required to consider the severity of the crimes, the impact on the victims, the importance of general deterrence and the need for punishment, and the defendants' age and willingness to cooperate with the authorities.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to the defendants, given the particularly heinous nature of the crimes and the aggravating factors involved. The court had to balance the need for general deterrence with the relevance of the youth of the offenders and their decision to assist the authorities. Furthermore, the court had to determine the appropriate weight to give to the defendants' undertaking to give evidence against their co-accused when considering the discount on their sentences.

In delivering its judgment, the court noted the seriousness of the crimes committed by the defendants, which involved a level of premeditation, violence, and callousness that warranted significant punishment. However, the court also recognised the relevance of the youth of the offenders and the fact that they had decided to assist the authorities by providing evidence against their co-accused. The court determined that a discount on their sentences was warranted, taking into account these factors. The court ultimately imposed sentences of imprisonment on the defendants, with the discount reflecting their age, the level of their cooperation with the authorities, and the other relevant sentencing considerations.

The court ordered that Natuba be imprisoned for a total of 17 years, with a non-parole period of 13 years, and that Tamapua be imprisoned for a total of 18 years, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The sentences reflected the serious nature of the crimes committed by the defendants, while also taking into account the mitigating factors that were present in this case.

Orders