R v Taufahema - [2018] NSWDC 445

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Taufahema [2018] NSWDC 445
Hearing dates: 11 December 2018
Date of orders: 11 December 2018
Decision date: 11 December 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
Fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months: at [14].

Catchwords: SENTENCING – conceal a serious indictable offence – guilty plea – low range of objective seriousness – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – on conditional liberty at time of the offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Podesta v R [2009] NSWCCA 97
R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269
Texts Cited: None
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Honora Taufahema (Offender)
Representation:
Ms Brown (DPP)
Mr Berents (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2017/362839

Judgment

In Podesta v R [2009] NSWCCA 97, McClelland CJ at CL was dealing with offences under ss 316 and 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and his Honour’s remarks about s 319 are equally applicable to s 316, namely any such offence has a tendency to seriously impact upon the order of our society and unless members of the community cooperate with the authorities in the investigation of crime, particularly major criminal offences, the rule of law may be undermined. That case was aptly cited to me by Mr Berents of Counsel for the offender, who appears today, having pleaded guilty to one count under s 316 of the Crimes Act of concealing a serious indictable offence, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and no standard non-parole period.
It is put without contest on the basis of an untested psychologist’s report that her motivation was to maintain a sense of loyalty to her family, and that she did not believe that the offending involved was sufficiently serious to warrant her breaching her loyalty to her family. That misguided loyalty sees her facing a serious criminal charge arising out of a robbery which was committed at the Auburn Girls High School on 26 October 2017.
The basis of her plea is that she was in a car with her sister and with her co-offender, Johnson, when a gentleman named Piukala returned to Johnson’s vehicle wearing a balaclava and carrying a hunting knife. This offender was aware that Piukala had committed a robbery at the school when he returned to the car and she was aware that she had information that would assist to apprehend and prosecute Piukala for the offence but she failed to notify the police.
The short facts show a very amateurish but serious robbery in which the offenders left significant evidence which enabled strong cases to be established against them quickly. Piukala went into the school administration office, wearing a balaclava and holding a 15 centimetre hunting knife in his hand, pushed the knife close to the female administrator’s stomach and said “Give me all the money.” She ultimately gave him $5,180 in cash, which had come from various envelopes. He ran off carrying the knife. CCTV…

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 Taufahema

Details

AGLC: R v Taufahema [2018] NSWDC 445
Case: [2018] NSWDC 445
Decision Date: 11 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Taufahema, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, which was a fixed term of imprisonment of six months for the offence of concealment of a serious indictable offence. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the respondent argued that the sentence was excessive. The appellant, the Crown, maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for a sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and to promote the rehabilitation of the offender. The court also considered the respondent's guilty plea, his prospects of rehabilitation, and the fact that he was on conditional liberty at the time of the offence. The Crown argued that the offence was serious, and that the sentence imposed was not excessive.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the offence was serious, but also recognised that the respondent had pleaded guilty and had guarded prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered the fact that the respondent was on conditional liberty at the time of the offence, which was a mitigating factor. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate, and dismissed the appeal.

The court noted that the sentence imposed was at the lower end of the range of objective seriousness for the offence, and that the respondent's prospects of rehabilitation were guarded. The court also considered the need for general deterrence, and found that the sentence imposed was sufficient to achieve that aim. The court did not make any orders altering the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months: at [14].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Taufahema [2018] NSWDC 445
Hearing dates:	11 December 2018
Date of orders:	11 December 2018
Decision date:	11 December 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	Fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months: at [14].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – conceal a serious indictable offence – guilty plea – low range of objective seriousness – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – on conditional liberty at time of the offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Podesta v R [2009] NSWCCA 97 R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Honora Taufahema (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Brown (DPP) Mr Berents (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2017/362839