R v Pikula - [2019] ACTSC 6

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Pikula
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 6
Hearing Date:	31 January 2019
DecisionDate:	31 January 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [18]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Attempted to conceal evidence with the intention of influencing the outcome of a legal proceeding
Legislation: Parties:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 706 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 The Queen (Crown) Taniela Pikula (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) J Stewart (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aulich Criminal Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 112 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 31 October 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to concealing evidence, between 2 and 15 November 2016, with the intention of influencing the outcome of a legal proceeding in the ACT.

This is an offence pursuant to s 706 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). It carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment and/or a fine of $105,000.

The background to the offence is based on the following allegations made by the Crown: A Mr Eden Waugh (now deceased) and Ms Marion Barr were allegedly drug dealers. In the early hours of 22 September 2016, Mr Jason Pikula-Carroll, who is a half-brother of the offender contacted Ms Barr to arrange the purchase of illegal drugs.

Because Mr Pikula-Carroll was subject to certain bail conditions he sent an emissary, Mr Clever, to complete the transaction at Ms Barr’s home. The transaction was not completed and the failure was reported to Mr Pikula-Carroll. This led to Mr Pikula-Carroll and a Mr Forster-Jones attending Ms Barr’s residence. They were armed with assorted weapons including a shot gun, a machete and a metal bar. Upon their arrival they assaulted Mr Waugh and two other persons who were present. The assault was reported to the police. The police sought out Mr Pikula-Carroll but did not locate him.

Mr Pikula-Carroll became aware that he was being sought and informed Mr Forster-Jones and his older brother Mr Lee Pikula about his concerns. He was of the view that Mr Waugh had provided the information about him to the police.

On 3 November 2016 Mr Pikula-Carroll and Mr Forster-Jones went to Mr Waugh’s home. Mr Forster-Jones fired a shotgun at the front door of the premises. Mr Waugh was behind the front door and was fatally injured by a pellet from the gun. The assailants then entered the residence and assaulted Ms Barr. They were assisted in their getaway by a Mr Sikounnabouth.

Continuing with the Crown’s allegations, Mr Forster-Jones and Mr Pikula-Carroll burned the clothes they had been wearing and also the shot gun casing. They went to Ms Deanne Pikula’s house in Karabar in NSW where they hid the weapons that had been in their possession.

Mr Lee Pikula agreed to retrieve the gun and crowbar that had been hidden at Ms Deanne Pikula’s house. On 5…

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 Pikula

Details

AGLC: R v Pikula [2019] ACTSC 6
Case: [2019] ACTSC 6
Decision Date: 31 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pikula was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Pikula, was charged with attempting to conceal evidence with the intention of influencing the outcome of a legal proceeding. The dispute centred around Pikula’s actions to obstruct the course of justice by hiding documents that were material to an ongoing criminal investigation. The court was tasked with determining whether Pikula's actions constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice, and if so, what the appropriate sentence would be.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether Pikula's actions of attempting to hide documents were an attempt to influence the outcome of a legal proceeding. The court also had to consider the gravity of the offence and the appropriate sentence. The defence argued that Pikula's actions, while potentially obstructive, did not amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice as the documents were not successfully hidden and the investigation was not significantly hindered.

The court found that Pikula's actions were indeed an attempt to pervert the course of justice. It was held that even though the attempt was unsuccessful, the intent to influence the outcome of a legal proceeding was sufficient to constitute the offence. In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court considered the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court ultimately decided that Pikula should be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 12 months, with a non-parole period of 8 months. The court noted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal system and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [18]

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.