Legal Research
Cases
R v Sateki Siale

R v Sateki Siale

Case [2017] NSWSC 1298 29 September 2017

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sateki Siale [2017] NSWSC 1298
Hearing dates: 15 September 2017
Date of orders: 29 September 2017
Decision date: 29 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
For the offence of the murder of Kelly Ventigadoo a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 17 years to commence on 11 October 2015, with a balance of term of 7 years

Catchwords: SENTENCING – murder – where actual use of weapon and prior criminal record – where offender heavily intoxicated
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; (2001) 209 CLR 1
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606
Madden v R [2011] NSWCCA 254
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Barbieri [2016] NSWCCA 295
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Sateki Siale (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Crespo (Crown)
B Hughes SC / B Longville (Offender)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (Crown)
Danny Eid Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 15/297019
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

remarks on sentence

In the early hours of 11 October 2015, the offender, Sateki Siale, murdered his neighbour, Mr Kelly Ventigadoo, by slashing Mr Ventigadoo on the face and across the neck with a broken bottle on two occasions.
As a result of these acts, Kelly Ventigadoo suffered several sharp force injuries to the head and neck, and the complete severing of the jugular vein and the carotid artery. Kelly Ventigadoo died almost immediately as a result of extensive blood loss.
The offender was arrested at Campsie Police Station at about 4pm on Sunday 11 October 2015, when he surrendered to police. The offender claimed to have no memory of the events of the previous evening. He has been in custody since this time.
When the offender was arraigned in the Supreme Court on 3 December 2016, he entered a plea of not guilty to murder. When arraigned at the commencement of the trial on 25 July 2017, he maintained his not guilty plea but entered a plea of guilty to the offence of assault causing death whilst intoxicated. That plea was not accepted by the Crown in discharge of the indictment.
On 4 August 2017, the jury returned its verdict, finding the offender guilty of murder.
It is now time for the offender to be sentenced for his crime.

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 Sateki Siale

Details

AGLC: R v Sateki Siale [2017] NSWSC 1298
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1298
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence in a case of murder. The appellant, Sateki Siale, was convicted of murdering a man during a confrontation in which a knife was used. The case came before the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, which was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed was excessive in light of the circumstances of the offence. The central issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's prior criminal history, the role of intoxication in the sentencing process, and the relevance of the actual use of a weapon in the commission of the crime.

The court first considered the appellant's prior criminal history, which included convictions for assault and drug offences. The appellant's counsel argued that the prior criminal history should be given little weight in sentencing, as the offences were relatively minor and had occurred a significant time prior to the current offence. The court acknowledged the appellant's submissions but found that the prior criminal history was relevant in assessing the appellant's culpability and risk of reoffending. The court also noted that the appellant had been released on bail prior to the current offence, which demonstrated a lack of rehabilitation and a willingness to reoffend. The court then considered the role of intoxication in the sentencing process, finding that while the appellant was heavily intoxicated at the time of the offence, this did not excuse his actions or reduce his culpability. The court found that the appellant had voluntarily consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication, and that this did not mitigate his responsibility for the offence. Finally, the court considered the relevance of the actual use of a weapon in the commission of the crime, finding that the use of a knife was a significant aggravating factor that warranted a substantial sentence. The court noted that the use of a weapon had the potential to cause serious harm or death, and that the appellant had used the weapon in a violent and premeditated manner.

Having considered these factors, the court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and not excessive. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community from the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, upholding the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and that the original sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years be upheld.

Orders