R v Takai-Taufu - [2008] NSWDC 293

CITATION: R v TAKAI-TAUFU [2008] NSWDC 293

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 October 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Murrell SC DCJ

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCE- CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - property offences - robbery - CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - offences against the person - other offences against the person - assaults

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Antonio v R [2008] NSWCCA 213
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
R v Boulder [2008] NSWCCA 222

PARTIES: Regina
Takai-Taufu

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/11/0028; 2008/11/0092

COUNSEL: Mr Grogan (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Mr Voros (for the accused)

SENTENCE

1 The offender is before the Court for sentence in relation to two incidents.

2 On 26 June 2008, a jury found the offender guilty of three offences that occurred on 25 November 2005 at Marrickville.

i. Robbery in company. The victim was Albert Franklin. A black wallet and contents, including about a hundred dollars in cash was stolen.
ii. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Franklin;
iii. Stealing a motor vehicle, the property of Mr Franklin.

3 The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was committed for sentence for the offence or robbery in company on 12 May 2007 at Darlinghurst. The victim was ME. A mobile telephone, keys, credit card, driver’s licence and cash were stolen.

4 The maximum available penalties are:

i. Robbery in company - twenty years imprisonment;

ii. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - five years imprisonment;

iii. Steal motor vehicle - five years imprisonment.

No standard non-parole period applies to any offence.

5 In relation to the incident on 12 May 2007, the Crown concedes that the offender entered a plea of guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity and is entitled to a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea.

6 The offender has been in custody since 12 May 2007. The first sentence should commence on that date.

7 In relation to the incident on 25 November 2005, the brief facts are that the victim was a sixty-nine year old taxi driver. At about 5.45am in the morning, he was working in the inner-city. He stopped his taxi at traffic lights in Surry Hills. Two men, one of whom was the offender, jumped into the car. The offender entered the rear seat. The co-offender, who has never been identified, entered the front passenger seat. Initially, the two men asked the taxi driver to take them to Dulwich Hill. However, in the course of the trip they redirected the victim to a dead-end street in Marrickville.

8 The co-offender demanded money from the victim. The victim gave him one hundred dollars in cash. The victim was directed to get out of the car. He did so. The offenders got out of the vehicle. The co-offender demanded the victim’s car keys. The victim handed his keys to the co-offender.

9 The offender demanded the victim’s loose change. He reached towards the pocket of the victim’s…

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 Takai-Taufu 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: [2008] NSWDC 293
Decision Date: 13 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Takai-Taufu involved the defendant, Takai-Taufu, who was charged with multiple offences including robbery and assault. The dispute arose from a series of incidents in which the defendant was alleged to have committed robbery and assaulted individuals. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions concerning robbery and assault. The court needed to determine whether the evidence presented supported the charges, and if so, the appropriate sentence to be imposed under the Crimes Act 1900. The defence argued that the charges were either misapplied or not supported by the evidence.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and the defendant's admissions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had committed the offences of robbery and assault. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in its sentencing determination. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence was imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length and conditions of the sentence being outlined in the judgment.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for the offences of robbery and assault, with the specific terms and conditions detailed in the judgment. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of the statutory provisions and the appropriate response to the defendant's criminal conduct.

Orders