R v Pikula
[2019] ACTSC 6
•31 January 2019
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 November 2016 the offender found the weapons under the house. He and Ms Deanne Pikula were concerned about the ramifications of what had been found and contacted Mr Pikula-Carroll’s mother, Ms Theresa Carroll for advice. Ms Carroll attended the house and together with the offender, took the gun and the crowbar to the Queanbeyan River and threw them into the river.
The offender made full admissions about the disposal of the gun and the crowbar when spoken to by the police. He said that he had been motivated by his desire to protect Ms Deanne Pikula who he thought might lose custody of her children as a result of her involvement. The offender’s cooperation with the police and his plea of guilty are important matters to be taken into account in sentencing.
Victim impact statements were tendered from Mr Waugh’s parents. His mother read out her statement. I have referred above to Mr Waugh being involved in drug dealing. Whatever may have been his involvement it does not reduce the affection with which he was held by his parents. His mother described the close relationship she had with her son. His parents have been devastated by his loss which they will feel for the remainder of their lives. It is a measure of Ms Waugh’s good nature that she addressed the offender and thanked him for his assistance to the authorities.
The offender was born in 1988. He is one of 11 children. He did not have a supportive upbringing. His parents separated when he was six years of age. He was exposed to substance abuse and violence. He left home as a teenager and lived with different family members. He didn’t do well at school and left in Year 9. He has had very little employment. He relies on Centrelink for financial support.
The offender has a long and extensive criminal history. He has been in prison and had a selection of different sentencing options. His history includes problems with drugs and alcohol but he seems to now be abstaining from drugs and doing his best with alcohol.
The offender has been assessed by a psychologist who came to the view that he is suffering a major depressive disorder and a generalised anxiety disorder. She thinks these disorders may have affected his mental capacity. She thinks that he would benefit from further treatment, in particular to help the offender gain insight into his behaviour. The psychologist expressed concern that a custodial environment would exacerbate his symptoms.
The difficulty in this case is that the gun which was thrown into the river was a weapon used to murder another person. This offence is objectively serious. On the other hand the offender did not act for his own benefit but acted for what he considered the benefit of Ms Pikula and her children.
ACT Corrective Services provided a report assessing the offender’s suitability for an Intensive Correction Order (ICO). The report says he is suitable for such an order and suggests that certain areas should be targeted during the period of the order. I think that the recommendations of the report should be adopted and an ICO should be made.
In doing so I have taken into account the objects and purposes of sentencing, as expressed in ss 6 and 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), and also s 10 which says that imprisonment should be a last resort. Although this offender is no stranger to imprisonment I do not think it would serve him or the community well should he be returned to prison. I also note that his actions did not impede any crucial part into the investigation of the murder of Mr Waugh.
I assess the combined discount for the plea of guilty and assistance to the authorities at 35 per cent.
I make the following orders:
(a)In relation to the offence of concealing evidence (XO2018/31393), the offender is sentenced to an Intensive Correction Order for a period of 12 months provided that during this period, on conditions set by the Director General of Corrective Services, the offender is not to consume alcohol, is subject to a curfew and performs 100 hours of community service.
(b)It is recommended that in the course of the above order the following areas be targeted:
(i)Psychological counselling;
(ii)A Cognitive-Self-Change program; and
(iii)Alcohol interventions.
| I certify that the preceding eighteen [18] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: 7 December 2020 |
0
0