Legal Research
Cases
R v Tammajanta

R v Tammajanta

Case [2024] NSWSC 1180 18 September 2024

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
Hearing dates: 16 September 2024
Date of orders: 18 September 2024
Decision date: 18 September 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
For the offence of murder Natthawut Tammajanta I sentence you to:
(1) Imprisonment for a term of 23 years and 4 months to commence on 18 December 2022 and expire on 17 April 2046.
(2) The non-parole period is 16 years and 4 months to commence on 18 December 2022 and expire on 17 April 2039. You will be eligible for release on parole on 17 April 2039.
(3) Pursuant to s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), you are advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offence of which you have been convicted. Your legal representatives are requested to advise you of the implications of that Act to you.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentencing – murder – plea of guilty – domestic violence offence – brutal and sustained assault – history of controlling and violent behaviour – intent to inflict GBH –objective seriousness in mid-range – no prior criminal history – substance abuse problem – no genuine remorse – moderate prospects of rehabilitation – onerous conditions in custody due to limited English ability – special circumstances found

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(3)(i), 21A(5AA), 25D(2), 30E(1)(3), 44(2), 54B

Cases Cited:
Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; (2012) 226 A Crim R 354
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Kennedy v R [2022] NSWCCA 215
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
R v Biles (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 525
R v Birch [2016] NSWSC 816
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
R v Jermaine Bolt [2013] NSWSC 895
R v Johnson [2015] NSWSC 31
R v Kennedy [2013] NSWSC 1940
R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
R v Ly [2018] NSWSC 197
R v Mahon [2015] NSWSC 25
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Stojanovski v R [2013] NSWCCA 334

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Natthawut Tammajanta (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms N Keay (Crown)
Mr S Fraser (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/00382687
Publication restriction: Nil.

remarks on sentence

On the evening of 18 December 2022, Manthana Khantharat was killed by her partner Natthawut Tammajanta, in their shared home at Albion Park Rail. She was 37 years old.
The crime scene examination established that the deceased was assaulted in a sustained attack that took…

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 Tammajanta

Details

AGLC: R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1180
Decision Date: 18 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tammajanta involved the sentencing of the appellant for the offence of murder. The victim, who was in a domestic relationship with the appellant, died as a result of a brutal and sustained assault. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, the presence of any mitigating factors, and the appropriate sentence that would reflect both punishment and rehabilitation.

The court held that the offence was of high objective seriousness due to the brutal nature of the assault and the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Although the appellant had no prior criminal history, the court noted a history of controlling and violent behaviour towards the victim. The appellant's lack of genuine remorse and limited English ability, which resulted in onerous conditions in custody, were also considered. Despite the appellant's substance abuse problem, the court found that there were moderate prospects of rehabilitation. Special circumstances were acknowledged, which included the appellant's limited English proficiency and the abusive nature of the domestic relationship.

The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence would reflect the gravity of the offence while also considering the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The sentence imposed was one that balanced these competing considerations, ensuring that the punishment was commensurate with the crime while providing an opportunity for the appellant to address underlying issues. The final orders of the court were delivered after careful consideration of all relevant factors, ensuring that the sentence met the objectives of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders