R v Tepania - [2017] NSWDC 435

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tepania [2017] NSWDC 435
Hearing dates: 15 August 2017
Date of orders: 02 November 2017
Decision date: 02 November 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to full-time imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 3 years and a head sentence of 5 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – plea to alternative count – ten-month old victim – burn injury – place child in bath – profound disadvantage – deprived upbringing
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Blackwell v R [2011] NSWCCA 93
Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v BJ [2017] NSWDC 234
R v Dashti [2016] NSWCCA 251
R v Egan [2016] NSWCCA 285
R v Fernando (1999) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Lolesio [2014] NSWCCA 219
R v Nolan [2017] NSWCCA 91
R v Pitcher (NSWCCA; unreported 19 February 1996, Gleeson CJ and Ireland J agreeing)
R v Smith [2005] NSWCCA 286
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Atare Tepania (Offender)
Representation: Representatives:
Ms Trinnie for the DPP
Ms Parker for the Mr Tepania

File Number(s): 2015/00343517
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR:

OVERVIEW

On the afternoon of Saturday 21 November 2015, the offender Atare Tepania embarked on an alcoholic binge with a number of his friends. Later that night he consumed a number of tablets that he believed to be ecstasy. He became offensive and belligerent in public and ultimately ended up back at the home unit where he had been living with his girlfriend Natasha and her ten-month-old baby son. The state of oblivion into which he had descended is exemplified by the fact that he endeavoured to consume the birth control pills of his girlfriend. It is unclear what further mind-altering qualities he imagined contraceptive pills might have had. In the course of the evening he smashed items in the unit, tried to eat a baby’s bracelet, physically assaulted his girlfriend and bit one of his male friends on the chest causing him to bleed. Perhaps unsurprisingly after he eventually passed out, he slept until some time the following afternoon.
After the offender woke up, the Natasha offered to go to the shops to buy him some cigarettes. She left the offender to take care of her ten-month-old infant. While the child’s mother was absent, the baby apparently vomited. Having heard the child crying, the offender picked him up by one arm and took him to the bathroom intending to wash the vomit from the child.
Whilst I will come to the detail of the facts later in these Remarks it suffices to note that during the absence of the child’s mother, the offender placed the infant into the bath and turned on the hot water tap. Whilst not having put the…

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 Tepania

Details

AGLC: R v Tepania [2017] NSWDC 435
Case: [2017] NSWDC 435
Decision Date: 02 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tepania involved the appellant, Tepania, who was charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to a ten-month-old child. Tepania had placed the child in a bath, resulting in a burn injury. The appellant did not dispute the facts but pleaded to an alternative count, acknowledging his responsibility. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence committed by Tepania, taking into account the severity of the harm caused to the child and the appellant's background, including his deprived upbringing and profound disadvantage.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, considering the significant harm caused to the child and the context of the offence. It was noted that the appellant's background and personal circumstances, while not excusing his actions, were relevant to understanding the context in which the offence occurred. The court balanced the need for punishment and deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation, ultimately determining that a custodial sentence was necessary. The court also considered the impact of the sentence on the victim, the community, and the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

In light of the factors considered, the court sentenced Tepania to full-time imprisonment. The non-parole period was set at three years, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for substantial punishment. The head sentence was set at five years, providing a framework for the overall term of imprisonment. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the underlying issues that contributed to the offence, while also ensuring public safety and upholding the principles of justice. The final orders of the court mandated that Tepania serve the determined sentence, with the specified non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to full-time imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 3 years and a head sentence of 5 years.

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 Tepania [2017] NSWDC 435
Hearing dates:	15 August 2017
Date of orders:	02 November 2017
Decision date:	02 November 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to full-time imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 3 years and a head sentence of 5 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – plea to alternative count – ten-month old victim – burn injury – place child in bath – profound disadvantage – deprived upbringing
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Blackwell v R [2011] NSWCCA 93 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v BJ [2017] NSWDC 234 R v Dashti [2016] NSWCCA 251 R v Egan [2016] NSWCCA 285 R v Fernando (1999) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Lolesio [2014] NSWCCA 219 R v Nolan [2017] NSWCCA 91 R v Pitcher (NSWCCA; unreported 19 February 1996, Gleeson CJ and Ireland J agreeing) R v Smith [2005] NSWCCA 286
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Atare Tepania (Offender)
Representation:	Representatives: Ms Trinnie for the DPP Ms Parker for the Mr Tepania
File Number(s):	2015/00343517
Publication restriction:	Nil