R v Tafuna Taumalolo - [2021] NSWSC 1412

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Tafuna Taumalolo
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2021] NSWSC 1412
Hearing Date(s):	15 October 2021
Date of Orders:	5 November 2021
Decision Date:	5 November 2021
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Davies J
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 14 years and 1 month commencing 26 May 2019 and expiring 25 June 2033 with a balance of term of 4 years and 9 months expiring 25 March 2038.
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence – murder – plea of guilty entered – offender charged with five others who have pleaded not guilty – offender and deceased both attendees at a 16th birthday party – offender and co-offenders observed punching kicking and stomping on deceased – apparently random attack – deceased died at scene – offender under influence of drugs and alcohol – objective seriousness slightly below the mid-range – young offender – importance of general deterrence – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and low risk of reoffending – offender remorseful – relevance of Covid-19 to custodial conditions – no finding of special circumstances - 10% discount for plea entered after committal for trial
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 25D
Cases Cited:	BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28 Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; (2008) 182 A Crim R 571 Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217 McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106 R v Fahda [2013] NSWCCA 86 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312; (2006) 164 A Crim R 252 R v Mills (Unreported, NSWCCA, 3 April 1995) R v Pocock [2008] NSWSC 1435 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335 R v Wilson [2005] NSWCCA 112 R v Wong [2010] NSWSC 171
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Crown Tafuna Taumalolo (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: D Daleo & K Marinos (Crown) T Anderson SC (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mark Rumore Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/164320

JUDGMENT

On 20 August 2021, the offender Tafuna Taumalolo, pleaded guilty to the murder of Alex Ioane on 24 May 2019 at Ingleburn. He comes now to be sentenced by me.
The offender was charged with five others, being his brother ST, cousins Suliasi and Mateaki Taumalolo, and two other persons, ET and Sione Taulepa Mayol. Those five accused have pleaded not guilty and have been committed for trial due to commence on 27 June 2022.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, and there is a standard non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment. The Crown does not submit that the level of culpability of the offender is so extreme that a life sentence should be imposed.

The murder of Alex Ioane

The factual matters concerning the murder and its…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Tafuna Taumalolo and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 1412
Decision Date: 5 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Tafuna Taumalolo, the High Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the sentence for a guilty plea to murder. The respondent was one of six individuals involved in an attack on the deceased, who had been attending a 16th birthday party. The assault was characterised as random, with the offender and co-offenders engaging in punching, kicking, and stomping on the deceased, resulting in the victim's death at the scene. The respondent was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the incident. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence considering the objective seriousness of the crime, the offender's age, the potential for rehabilitation, and the impact of Covid-19 on custodial conditions.

The primary legal issue was to establish the appropriate penalty for the respondent's involvement in the murder, considering the mitigating factors and the principles of sentencing. The court evaluated the objective seriousness of the offence, which was slightly below the mid-range, the offender's youth, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the low risk of reoffending. Additionally, the court considered the respondent's remorse, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on custodial conditions, and the 10% discount for the plea entered after committal for trial. The court also examined whether any special circumstances existed that would warrant a departure from the usual sentencing principles.

The court found that while the attack was of significant seriousness, the offender's age, remorse, and the prospects of rehabilitation were mitigating factors. The court did not identify any special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the standard sentencing principles. Considering the mitigating factors and the discount for the plea, the court determined that the appropriate sentence would be one of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The final orders reflected the court's decision, imposing a term of imprisonment with a specific non-parole period, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

Orders