District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Piukala; R v Johnson [2019] NSWDC 143 Hearing dates: 11 December 2018; 15 February 2019 Date of orders: 15 February 2019 Decision date: 15 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: Johnson: A term of imprisonment of 2 years, with a non-parole period of 1 year.
Piukala: A term of imprisonment of 3 years, 4 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 months.
See [38].Catchwords: SENTENCING – armed robbery – guilty plea – aggravating factors – victim impact statement – subjective factors – drug addiction – prospects of rehabilitation
SENTENCING – armed robbery – accessory – guilty plea – victim impact statement – subjective factors – mental health – drug addiction – prospects or rehabilitationLegislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
John Piukala (Offender)
Stan Johnson (Offender)Representation: Ms Brown (Crown)
Mr Waldersee (Offender – Piukala)
Ms O’ Shane (Offender – Johnson)
File Number(s): 2017/362749; 2018/376118 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
Sometime during the morning of Thursday 26 October 2017 a man named Wayne Morris made contact with Stan Johnson and asked him to do a favour. He asked him to pick up some people and give them a lift somewhere. As a result of this Johnson drove his car to Sturt Street, Telopea and picked up two females and a male, the Taufahema sisters and John Piukala. They drove to Hunter Street and parked near Auburn Girls’ School. CCTV footage shows three people, namely Piukala and the two Taufahema sisters getting out of the car and walking in the direction of the school.
-
At about 1.10pm Piukala entered the school administration office wearing a knitted balaclava and holding a 15 centimetre hunting type knife in his right hand. He put the knife to the stomach of the female school administrator who was working in the office. She pushed the knife away. He pushed it closer to her stomach and he said,
I want all the money, listen to me, just do it, don’t scream, do as you’re told and you won’t get hurt.
She said,
Yeah, darling take everything, take anything you want.
-
She gave him a purple lunch box containing cash and an A4 envelope containing 40 smaller envelopes each with $50 in it. Later it was found that $5,180 in cash had been taken. The registration number of Johnson’s car was recorded by a witness and CCTV footage from various sources in the area captured much of this activity.
-
It leads to Piukala and Johnson appearing for sentence, having pleaded guilty to the charge under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, of robbery armed with an offensive weapon which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years with…
Continue reading R v Piukala; R v Johnson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Piukala; R v Johnson [2019] NSWDC 143
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate terms of imprisonment and non-parole periods for the applicants, given their guilty pleas and the presence of various aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considered the severity of the offence, the roles of the applicants in the crime, and the personal circumstances that might warrant a lesser or greater sentence. In particular, the court focused on the applicants' backgrounds, including their struggles with drug addiction and mental health issues, as well as their prospects for rehabilitation.
In assessing these factors, the court noted that while both applicants had pleaded guilty, which typically warranted a reduced sentence, the gravity of the armed robbery offence was significant. The court took into account the victim impact statements, which highlighted the trauma experienced by the victims. For Johnson, the court recognised his limited role in the offence and his early guilty plea, along with his struggles with drug addiction and prospects of rehabilitation. For Piukala, the court considered his more substantial involvement and the presence of mental health issues. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year for Johnson and three years and four months with a non-parole period of two years and four months for Piukala.
The court's decision reflected a balance between the need to punish the applicants for their serious criminal conduct and the recognition of their personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation. The sentences imposed were intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence while also providing an opportunity for the applicants to address their underlying issues and reintegrate into society.
Orders
Orders of the court
Johnson: A term of imprisonment of 2 years, with a non-parole period of 1 year.
Piukala: A term of imprisonment of 3 years, 4 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 months.
See [38].
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.