R v Peniamina (No 2) - [2021] QSC 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Peniamina (No 2) [2021] QSC 282

PARTIES:

R

(prosecution)

v
ARONA PENIAMINA

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 679 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 October 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2021

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

1.   Sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.

2.   Offence declared a serious violent offence.

3.   Offence declared a domestic violence offence.

4.   Eligibility for parole after serving 80 per cent of the term of imprisonment imposed.

5.   The period served in pre-sentence custody between 1 April 2016 and 24 October 2021, being 2034 days, is time served on the sentence.

6.   Conviction recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER - where the defendant was charged with murder - where at his trial he pleaded guilty to manslaughter - where the Crown did not accept the plea - where the jury, by majority, convicted the defendant of manslaughter - where the jury must have been satisfied that the defendant intentionally killed his wife but convicted him of manslaughter based on the partial defence of provocation - where the offence was committed in a domestic situation - where the assault was prolonged - where the assault was savage - where the defendant showed true remorse

Criminal Code, s 304, s 304B
Criminal Law (Domestic Violence) Amendment Act 2016
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 9, s 9(10A)

Barbaro and Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58, followed
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, cited
Peniamina v The Queen (2020) 95 ALJR 85, related
Pollock v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 233, followed
R v Hedlefs [2017] QCA 199, followed
R v Hutchison [2018] QCA 29, considered
R v Mills [2008] QCA 146, considered
R v MP [2004] QCA 170, cited
R v Murray [2012] QCA 68, considered
R v O’Malley [2019] QCA 130 , considered
R v O’Sullivan Ex Parte Attorney General, and R v Lee Ex Parte Attorney General (2019) 3 QR 196, followed
R v Peniamina (2019) 2 QR 658, related
R v Sebo [2007] QCA 426, considered
R v Schubring [2004] QCA 418, cited
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, followed

COUNSEL:

D Balic for the applicant

T Ryan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

Arona Peniamina, you have been convicted of one count of manslaughter. The victim was Sandra Peniamina, your wife and the mother of your four children. You were convicted of manslaughter after a trial at which you pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter.
In sentencing you I must make findings of fact. Those findings are a matter for me as there were no special verdicts sought and delivered. Any findings made by me must…

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 Peniamina (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Peniamina (No 2) [2021] QSC 282
Case: [2021] QSC 282
Decision Date: 25 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant was charged with the murder of his wife, and he pleaded guilty to manslaughter at his trial. The Crown did not accept the plea, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial, who by a majority, convicted the defendant of manslaughter. The offence was committed in a domestic situation and involved a prolonged and savage assault. The defendant showed true remorse for his actions. The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the jury had the authority to convict the defendant of manslaughter instead of murder, and what sentence should be imposed.

The court considered the relevant statutes and case law, including Barbaro and Zirilli v The Queen and Pollock v The Queen. The court found that the jury had the authority to convict the defendant of manslaughter instead of murder, based on the partial defence of provocation. The court also considered the relevant sentencing principles and found that the offence was a serious violent offence and a domestic violence offence. The court imposed a sentence of 16 years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving 80 per cent of the term.

The court declared the offence a serious violent offence and a domestic violence offence, and ordered that the period served in pre-sentence custody be counted as time served on the sentence. The court also recorded the conviction. The defendant was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving 80 per cent of the term. The offence was declared a serious violent offence and a domestic violence offence, and the period served in pre-sentence custody was counted as time served on the sentence. The conviction was also recorded.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.

2. Offence declared a serious violent offence.

3. Offence declared a domestic violence offence.

4. Eligibility for parole after serving 80 per cent of the term of imprisonment imposed.

5. The period served in pre-sentence custody between 1 April 2016 and 24 October 2021, being 2034 days, is time served on the sentence.

6. Conviction recorded.

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.

CITATION:	R v Peniamina (No 2) [2021] QSC 282
PARTIES:	R (prosecution) v ARONA PENIAMINA (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 679 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 October 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 October 2021
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	1. Sentenced to 16 years imprisonment. 2. Offence declared a serious violent offence. 3. Offence declared a domestic violence offence. 4. Eligibility for parole after serving 80 per cent of the term of imprisonment imposed. 5. The period served in pre-sentence custody between 1 April 2016 and 24 October 2021, being 2034 days, is time served on the sentence. 6. Conviction recorded.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER - where the defendant was charged with murder - where at his trial he pleaded guilty to manslaughter - where the Crown did not accept the plea - where the jury, by majority, convicted the defendant of manslaughter - where the jury must have been satisfied that the defendant intentionally killed his wife but convicted him of manslaughter based on the partial defence of provocation - where the offence was committed in a domestic situation - where the assault was prolonged - where the assault was savage - where the defendant showed true remorse Criminal Code, s 304, s 304B Criminal Law (Domestic Violence) Amendment Act 2016 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 9, s 9(10A) Barbaro and Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58, followed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, cited Peniamina v The Queen (2020) 95 ALJR 85, related Pollock v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 233, followed R v Hedlefs [2017] QCA 199, followed R v Hutchison [2018] QCA 29, considered R v Mills [2008] QCA 146, considered R v MP [2004] QCA 170, cited R v Murray [2012] QCA 68, considered R v O’Malley [2019] QCA 130 , considered R v O’Sullivan Ex Parte Attorney General, and R v Lee Ex Parte Attorney General (2019) 3 QR 196, followed R v Peniamina (2019) 2 QR 658, related R v Sebo [2007] QCA 426, considered R v Schubring [2004] QCA 418, cited Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, followed
COUNSEL:	D Balic for the applicant T Ryan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent