R v Pannu - [2020] NSWDC 299

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pannu [2020] NSWDC 299
Hearing dates: 3/4/20, 20/4/20
Date of orders: 20 April 2020
Decision date: 20 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 2 years

Catchwords: Crime – Sentence - taking and detaining person with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage in circumstances of special aggravation, being in company and where actual bodily harm was inflicted
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Newell v R [2004] NSWCCA 183
Sheen v R [2014] NSWCCA 42
Category: Sentence
Parties: DPP – Crown
Lesieli Pannu - Offender
Representation: Mr M Paish for Crown
Ms S Hall for Offender

File Number(s): 2018/392440
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The offender, Ms Pannu, is before the Court for sentencing in relation to an offence under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, being an offence of taking and detaining a person with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage in circumstances of special aggravation, namely being in company with other persons and where actual bodily harm was inflicted. The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period that applies.
In addition, the offender asks that in sentencing her I take into account two offences on a Form 1 document. The first offence is one of intentionally choking a person, being reckless as to rendering the person unconscious, insensible or incapable of resistance. The second offence is one of reckless wounding committed in company. The maximum penalty for each of those offences is 10 years’ imprisonment, with again no standard non-parole periods.
The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a 25% discount on account of that plea of guilty.
An Agreed Statement of Facts has been placed before the Court. In summary the facts are as follows:
The victim of the offences was a 23 year old woman named Keiarna Crane. The offences occurred on 19 December 2018. In the weeks preceding that date the victim had been threatened with a firearm due to a disagreement with another person. As a result she had sought protection from an associate, a Mr Paleya, who went by the nickname of Smokey. As a result of this protection the victim allegedly incurred a $2,000 debt to Smokey. The victim however refused to pay that debt as she was of the view that any debt was covered by work she was already doing in the form of gaol drops.
About 7.15am on 19 December the victim was at home when Fale Faasavalu, Michael Ritchie and the current offender, Ms Pannu, arrived. Faasavalu indicated that they needed to go see Smokey, and offered to drive the victim to St Mary’s Police Station where she was required to report for the purposes of bail.
Although the victim said “all right” she did not really wish to go with them.…

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 Pannu

Details

AGLC: R v Pannu [2020] NSWDC 299
Case: [2020] NSWDC 299
Decision Date: 20 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pannu was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria where the defendant, Pannu, was convicted of taking and detaining a person with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage under circumstances of special aggravation. This involved Pannu acting in company with others and where actual bodily harm was inflicted on the victim. The prosecution alleged that Pannu and his co-conspirators had abducted a person, held them captive, and inflicted harm with the intention of extorting a ransom. The case centred on whether the specific elements of the crime as charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and if so, what sentence should be imposed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of the offence as charged, including the special aggravating circumstances of acting in company and causing actual bodily harm. The court had to consider the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and the defendant's own admissions or denials. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity of the crime, the harm caused to the victim, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had successfully proven all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence clearly demonstrated that Pannu and his co-conspirators had acted together, and that actual bodily harm had been inflicted on the victim. The court found the aggravating factors of acting in company and causing harm to be particularly egregious, significantly increasing the severity of the offence. In considering the sentence, the court took into account the impact of the crime on the victim, the defendant's criminal history, and the need to deter similar offences in the future. The court sentenced Pannu to imprisonment for three years and four months, with a non-parole period of two years.

The final orders of the court were that Pannu be sentenced to imprisonment for a total of three years and four months, with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence reflects the gravity of the offence and aims to serve both as punishment for the crime and as a deterrent against similar conduct in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 2 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Pannu [2020] NSWDC 299
Hearing dates:	3/4/20, 20/4/20
Date of orders:	20 April 2020
Decision date:	20 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 2 years
Catchwords:	Crime – Sentence - taking and detaining person with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage in circumstances of special aggravation, being in company and where actual bodily harm was inflicted
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Newell v R [2004] NSWCCA 183 Sheen v R [2014] NSWCCA 42
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	DPP – Crown Lesieli Pannu - Offender
Representation:	Mr M Paish for Crown Ms S Hall for Offender
File Number(s):	2018/392440
Publication restriction:	None