R v Taufahema - [2010] NSWCCA 241

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Taufahema [2010] NSWCCA 241

HEARING DATE(S): 14/10/2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Kirby J at 2; Hoeben J at 3

DECISION: The Crown appeal is allowed.
The sentence in respect of count 4 is quashed and in lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years to date from 10 December 2007 and to expire on 9 December 2009 with a balance of term of 2 years to expire on 9 December 2011.
The sentence in respect of count 1 is quashed and in lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years to date from 10 December 2008 and to expire on 9 December 2012 with a balance of term of 3 years to expire on 9 December 2015.
The sentence in respect of count 2 is quashed and in lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years to date from 10 December 2009 and to expire on 9 December 2013 with a balance of term of 3 years to expire on 9 December 2016.
The sentence in respect of count 3 is quashed and in lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years to date from 10 June 2011 and to expire on 9 June 2015 with a balance of term of 3 years to expire on 9 June 2018.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - pleas of guilty to three offences of robbery armed with a dangerous weapon and one offence of possess pistol without licence - whether sentences reflected the objective seriousness of the offences, whether principle in Pearce v The Queen (1994) 194 CLR 610 was applied - whether regard had to offences on Form 1 - application of standard non-parole period - application of principle of totality.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Firearms Act 1996

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen (1994) 194 CLR 610

PARTIES: Regina - Crown
Manaloa Taufahema - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2009/9129

COUNSEL: JA Girdham - Crown
Ms C Nash/Mr D Kang - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
S O'Connor, Solicitor for the Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/00009129

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Judge Finnane RFD QC

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 07/05/2010

2009/9129

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
KIRBY J
HOEBEN J
Thursday 28 October 2010

REGINA v Manaloa TAUFAHEMA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hoeben J.

2 KIRBY J: I agree with Hoeben J.

Offences and Sentence

Crimes Act

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 [2010] NSWCCA 241
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 241
Decision Date: 28 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Taufahema, the respondent, Taufahema, was convicted of three counts of robbery armed with a dangerous weapon and one count of possessing a pistol without a licence. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, with the Crown seeking to appeal the sentence imposed on Taufahema. The appeal centred on whether the sentences reflected the objective seriousness of the offences and whether the principle in Pearce v The Queen applied. Additionally, the court examined whether the possession of the pistol without a licence should be considered as a separate offence on Form 1, the application of the standard non-parole period, and the application of the principle of totality.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed on Taufahema appropriately reflected the objective seriousness of the offences and whether the principle in Pearce v The Queen applied. The court also needed to determine if the possession of the pistol without a licence should be treated as a separate offence on Form 1 and whether the standard non-parole period was correctly applied. Furthermore, the court had to consider the application of the principle of totality in sentencing.

The court held that the sentences imposed on Taufahema adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offences. The principle in Pearce v The Queen was considered, but the court found it did not apply in this instance. The possession of the pistol without a licence was treated as a separate offence on Form 1, and the standard non-parole period was correctly applied. The principle of totality was also appropriately considered in the sentencing process. Consequently, the Crown's appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the Crown's appeal.

Orders