R v Taki - [2015] QCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Taki [2015] QCA 60

PARTIES:

R
v
TAKI, William Rotoparera
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 251 of 2014
DC No 312 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

17 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 April 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore on 17 April 2015:

1.   The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2.   The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent of adding that the applicant be eligible to apply for parole after two years and nine months, that is, on 28 May 2017.

3.   The sentence imposed at first instance is otherwise confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was charged with burglary with the aggravating factors of violence while armed in company (count 1), stealing (count 2) and grievous bodily harm (count 3) – where the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary with violence but not guilty to the remaining aggravating factors, not guilty to stealing and guilty to grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was convicted after trial of the aggravating factors of the burglary and of stealing – where the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility after three years – where the sentencing judge made no reference to the applicant’s limited guilty pleas – where the sentencing judge gave no credit for the applicant’s limited cooperation with authority by setting an earlier parole eligibility date – where the sentencing judge did not comply with s 13(3) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentencing judge erred in not taking into account the applicant’s guilty pleas – whether the sentence must be reviewed

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(3)

R v Duncan [2006] QCA 46, cited
R v Pearce[1998] QCA 325, cited
R v Peisley[2009] QCA 142, cited
R v Rankin[2004] QCA 2, cited
R v Safi[2015] QCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
T A Fuller QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, William Rotoparera Taki, was charged with burglary with the aggravating factors of violence while armed in company (count 1); stealing (count 2); and grievous bodily harm (count 3). All offences were charged as occurring on the 4th of October 2013. On the 28th of August 2013, he pleaded guilty to burglary with violence, but not guilty to the remaining aggravating factors, not guilty to stealing, and guilty to grievous bodily harm. After a two-day trial, he was convicted of the aggravating factors of the burglary and…

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 Taki

Details

AGLC: R v Taki [2015] QCA 60
Case: [2015] QCA 60
Decision Date: 17 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taki, the applicant was charged with multiple offences including burglary with violence while armed in company, stealing, and grievous bodily harm. The applicant pleaded guilty to burglary with violence and grievous bodily harm but denied the remaining charges. Following a trial, the applicant was convicted of all charges and sentenced to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility after three years. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to consider the limited nature of their guilty pleas and cooperation with authorities, which should have warranted an earlier parole eligibility date. The appeal also contended that the sentencing judge did not comply with specific statutory requirements.

The central legal issues in this appeal involved whether the sentencing judge's failure to account for the applicant’s limited guilty pleas and cooperation warranted interference with the sentence. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the sentencing judge's non-compliance with statutory requirements necessitated a review of the sentence. The applicant's counsel argued that the sentencing judge's oversight in not crediting the applicant’s limited pleas and cooperation was a significant error, and thus the sentence should be adjusted to reflect these factors more accurately. The court examined whether these oversights constituted a substantial injustice warranting appellate intervention.

The court found that the sentencing judge did indeed err in not considering the applicant's limited guilty pleas and cooperation, which are critical factors in determining parole eligibility. The court held that the sentencing judge's failure to comply with statutory requirements further underscored the need for a review. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent that the applicant should be eligible to apply for parole after two years and nine months. The sentence otherwise remained unchanged. The court granted the application for leave to appeal, adjusted the parole eligibility date, and confirmed the rest of the sentence as imposed initially.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 17 April 2015:

1. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent of adding that the applicant be eligible to apply for parole after two years and nine months, that is, on 28 May 2017.

3. The sentence imposed at first instance is otherwise confirmed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Taki [2015] QCA 60
PARTIES:	R v TAKI, William Rotoparera (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 251 of 2014 DC No 312 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	17 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 April 2015
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Applegarth J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered ex tempore on 17 April 2015: 1. The application for leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent of adding that the applicant be eligible to apply for parole after two years and nine months, that is, on 28 May 2017. 3. The sentence imposed at first instance is otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was charged with burglary with the aggravating factors of violence while armed in company (count 1), stealing (count 2) and grievous bodily harm (count 3) – where the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary with violence but not guilty to the remaining aggravating factors, not guilty to stealing and guilty to grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was convicted after trial of the aggravating factors of the burglary and of stealing – where the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility after three years – where the sentencing judge made no reference to the applicant’s limited guilty pleas – where the sentencing judge gave no credit for the applicant’s limited cooperation with authority by setting an earlier parole eligibility date – where the sentencing judge did not comply with s 13(3) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentencing judge erred in not taking into account the applicant’s guilty pleas – whether the sentence must be reviewed Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(3) R v Duncan [2006] QCA 46, cited R v Pearce[1998] QCA 325, cited R v Peisley[2009] QCA 142, cited R v Rankin[2004] QCA 2, cited R v Safi[2015] QCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf T A Fuller QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent