R v Tame Kohunui - [2007] VSC 180

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1481 of 2006

THE QUEEN

TAME KOHUNUI

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 April 2007, 20 April 2007, 23 April 2007, 26 April 2007, 30 April 2007, 1 May 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 May 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Tame Kohunui
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 180

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Manslaughter (1 count) - Armed robberies (2 counts) - Plea of guilty to all offences – Evidence given against co-accused in second armed robbery and murder, refusal to co-operate in relation to first armed robbery - Prior Convictions – Remorse - Capacity for rehabilitation - 5 years imprisonment for first armed robbery, 4 years imprisonment for second armed robbery, 8 years imprisonment for manslaughter – 3 years of the sentence on the first armed robbery and 2 years on the second to be cumulative with manslaughter sentence - Total effective sentence after cumulation 13 years with a non-parole period of 9 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Horgan SC with Mr T Wallwork	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Drake	Geoffrey Tobin

HIS HONOUR:

Tame Kohunui, on 19 April 2007 you were arraigned on one count of murder and two counts of armed robbery. You pleaded not guilty to those charges. After discussions between your counsel and counsel for the prosecution, the presentment was amended so that the charge of murder was amended to one of manslaughter. You were re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to all charges.

The maximum penalty on the offence of manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty on the offence of armed robbery is 25 years’ imprisonment.

On the original presentment there were seven accused. Three were charged with assisting offences. You and your brother, John, were charged with murder and two armed robberies. Mark Herbert was charged (with the you and your brother) with one count of armed robbery, and Wally White was charged (with you and your brother) with another count of armed robbery and with murder. Consequent upon guilty pleas by yourself, and by your brother, new separate presentments were filed in relation to Wally White and Mark Herbert.

All of the various charges relate to two armed robberies at a gaming venue named the Freccia Azzurra Club in Keysborough. The first occurred on 2 November 2004 and the second on 28 November 2004.

In the first armed robbery you and your brother attended the Club at approximately 11:22 pm with a third person, who the Crown alleges was Mark Herbert. The three of you were armed with large knives and a meat cleaver. There were no firearms on this occasion. Two female staff members were present but no patrons. Over $30,000 was stolen. The armed robbery was planned, but not meticulously so. You and your brother attended the club the day before to conduct…

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 Tame Kohunui

Details

AGLC: R v Tame Kohunui [2007] VSC 180
Case: [2007] VSC 180
Decision Date: 8 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case, Tame Kohunui, faced multiple charges including manslaughter, and two counts of armed robbery. The case was heard in the relevant higher court, where the defendant had entered guilty pleas to all charges. The court's task was to determine the appropriate sentences for each of these offences, considering factors such as the defendant's involvement, cooperation with the prosecution, prior convictions, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court involved the determination of sentences that reflected the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's level of culpability, and the mitigating factors presented. The court had to balance these considerations to arrive at a just outcome, particularly in light of the defendant's cooperation with the prosecution against co-accused and his lack of cooperation in relation to one of the armed robberies.

The court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea and cooperation with the prosecution, but also recognised the gravity of the offences, especially the manslaughter charge. It determined that the defendant's prior convictions and lack of remorse were significant factors in the sentencing process. The court sentenced the defendant to five years for the first armed robbery, four years for the second armed robbery, and eight years for manslaughter. Three years of the sentence on the first armed robbery and two years on the second were to run concurrently with the manslaughter sentence, resulting in a total effective sentence of 13 years with a non-parole period of nine years.

Orders