R v Piukala; R v Johnson

Case [2019] NSWDC 143


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 rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases 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 269
Texts 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Piukala; R v Johnson [2019] NSWDC 143
Case
[2019] NSWDC 143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Piukala and Johnson, were before the Supreme Court of Queensland in relation to their involvement in an armed robbery. Both applicants pleaded guilty to their respective charges. The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences for the applicants, taking into account various factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, the personal circumstances of each applicant, and the impact of the crime on the victims.

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.