R v Taufoou

Case [2021] NSWDC 402

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Taufoou [2021] NSWDC 402
Hearing dates: 22 March 2021 to 1 April 2021
9 August 2021
Date of orders: 12 August 2021
Decision date: 12 August 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Weinstein SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months

Catchwords:

CRIME –Assault occasioning actual body harm with intent – Common Assault

SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Quasi custody – Immigration Detention

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37

AM v R [2012] NSWCCA 203

Islam v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 2

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25

Muldrock vThe Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120

R v Dadash [2012] NSWSC 1511

R v Kama (2000) 110 A Crim R 47

R v Mitchell (2007) 177 A Crim R 94

R v Mohamed [2016] VSC 581

R v Woods (NSWCCA, 9 October 1990, unreported

R v Wright [1998] VSCA 84

Small v R [2018] NSWCCA 290

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown (NSW): Regina
Offender: Petueli Taufoou
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown (NSW): Fleur Sullivan
Offender: Karen Conte-Mills

Solicitors:
Crown (NSW): James Moore, ODPP
Offender: Claude Harb, Harb Lawyers
File Number(s): 2016/284335
Publication restriction: n/a

Judgment

  1. The offender Petueli Taufoou born in1991 in Tonga, has been found guilty of the offences of:

  1. On 21 September 2016, at Canley Vale in the State of New South Wales he caused grievous bodily harm to Tan Phong Nguyen with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Tan Phong Nguyen contrary to s33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment and for which there is a standard non-parole period of seven years (Count 1);

  2. On 21 September 2016, at Canley Vale in the State of New South Wales, assaulted Thanh Hien Nguyen, thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm contrary to s59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment and for which there is no standard non-parole period (Count 3); and

  3. On 21 September 2016, at Canley Vale in the State of New South Wales, assaulted Hong Anh Dang contrary to s61 of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment and for which there is no standard non-parole period (Count 4).

  1. I find the following facts:

  1. As at 21 September 2016, the offender, then aged 24 years of age, lived in a block of units at West St, Canley Vale.

  2. The offender had practised boxing when he was in Tonga.

  3. There are three victims in this matter; Tan Phong Nguyen (aged 55 at the time of the offences), Thanh Hien Nguyen (aged 50 at the time of the offences), and Hong Anh Dang (aged 24 at the time of the offences).

  4. On 21 September 2016, the three victims were travelling together in a car that was being driven by Tan Phong. Tan Phong was taking…

Continue reading R v Taufoou

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Taufoou [2021] NSWDC 402
Case
[2021] NSWDC 402
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taufoou, the appellant was convicted of a series of criminal offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the appeal focusing on the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not adequately considered certain factors in the sentencing process, including the quasi-custody nature of the immigration detention he was serving at the time of sentencing. This, he contended, should have led to a more lenient sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to sufficiently consider the appellant's circumstances, specifically the impact of his ongoing immigration detention, when determining the appropriate sentence. The court was required to determine if the trial judge's failure to consider this factor amounted to a significant error in the sentencing process that warranted a reduction in the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate in light of the principles of sentencing.

In considering these issues, the court concluded that while the trial judge had not explicitly addressed the appellant's immigration detention in the sentencing remarks, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors and had reached a sentence within the appropriate range. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of imprisonment was upheld. The appellant's sentence, therefore, remains an aggregate term of six years and six months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months

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.