R v Saipani (No 2)

Case [2020] ACTSC 228

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Saipani (No 2)

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 228

Hearing Date:

18 August 2020

DecisionDate:

18 August 2020

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Offender sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of fourteen months’ imprisonment.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated burglary by joint commission – Home invasion – Parity and co-offenders – Co-offenders sentenced for common assault and possess weapon

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 312

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302; 37 VR 658
R v Hanrahan [2020] ACTSC 10
R v Hiron [2018] NSWCCA 10
R v Keir [2016] ACTSC 266
R v Lau; R v Lutze [2019] ACTSC 353
R v Lau [2020] ACTSC 120
R v Lutze [2020] ACTSC 121
R v Saipani [2020] ACTSC 191
Wan v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 261
White v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 190; 261 A Crim R 302

Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Javarne Saipani (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

M Howe (Crown)

F Purnell SC (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 100 of 2019

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

  1. On 15 July 2020, I found the offender guilty of aggravated burglary by joint commission, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CriminalCode), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code.

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $320,000, 20 years’ imprisonment, or both.

  1. The offender has been in custody since 15 July 2020. In relation to this matter, he was also in custody from 5 to 21 November 2018 (i.e. a period of 16 days). The sentence imposed will be backdated to 29 June 2020.

Facts

  1. The full facts are set out in R v Saipani [2020] ACTSC 191.

  1. As at 4 November 2018, MC, TE and DX resided at a unit in Lyneham. MC and TE were the principal occupants of the unit. DX was staying on a temporary basis. MC was the lessee, and she was entitled to determine who entered and remained upon the premises.

  1. KM was a friend of MC. He was a drug user. On 4 November 2018, KM was at MC’s unit. He became angry, agitated, and/or frustrated.  He was concerned about making a telephone call or calls. He spoke to Mr Butkovic (a co-offender), who was with the offender and Mr Kaddour (another co-offender) at that time. He advised Mr Butkovic of the address of the Lyneham unit.

  1. The three men agreed that they would go together to the unit to see KM for the purpose of…

Continue reading R v Saipani (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Saipani (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 228
Case
[2020] ACTSC 228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Saipani and his co-offenders, were charged with aggravated burglary by joint commission during a home invasion. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the respondent Saipani, who had not been physically present during the incident but had played a role in planning and facilitating the crime. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate weight to give to Saipani's lack of physical presence during the burglary, and how to balance this with his significant role in planning and facilitating the crime.

The court considered the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing, particularly in light of the sentences already given to the co-offenders. The co-offenders had been sentenced for common assault and possession of a weapon. The court found that Saipani's role in the crime, while not involving direct physical participation, was nevertheless critical in enabling the home invasion to occur. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to provide general and specific deterrence. After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that Saipani's sentence should reflect both his culpability and the need for parity with his co-offenders' sentences.

Saipani was sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of fourteen months’ imprisonment. The court balanced the principles of parity and proportionality, taking into account Saipani's significant role in the planning and facilitation of the crime, while also considering the sentences already imposed on his co-offenders. The court's decision aimed to ensure that the overall punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the crime and that it provided appropriate deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offender sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of fourteen months’ imprisonment.

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.