Legal Research
Cases
R v Tevita

R v Tevita

Case [2006] QCA 131 28 April 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131
PARTIES: R
v
TEVITA, Sifa
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 18 of 2006 SC No 344 of 2005
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 28 April 2006
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 13 April 2006
JUDGES: McPherson JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ
Judgment of the Court
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND
INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW
TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY
CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE
SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – where
applicant sentenced for attempting to kill and stealing –
applicant used a knife to cut the throat of wheelchair-bound
complainant then later returned to stab him three times in the
back – where promise of money by third party – guilty plea
and youth considered – whether statutory maximum of life
imprisonment warranted – whether sentence of 18 years
imposed manifestly excessive
R v Bird & Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394, considered
R v Day, unreported, CA 364 of 1990, 26 March, 1991,
considered
R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered
R v Hewitt, unreported, CA 405 of 1993, 3 December 1993,
considered
R v Jervis [1993] 1 Qd R 643, considered
R v Lepp [1998] QCA 411, considered
R v Rochester; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 326,
considered
R v Schaefer [2001] QCA 327; CA No 89 of 2001, 10 August
2001, considered
R v Streeton [1997] QCA 178
R v Witchard [2004] QCA 429; [2005] 1 Qd R 428,
considered
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, cited
COUNSEL: A J Rafter SC for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE COURT: Sifa Tevita pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to kill on 12 May 2004 (count 1) and to a charge of stealing the victim’s video camera (count 3). He was sentenced in the Supreme Court to imprisonment for 18 years and on count 3 for five years to be served concurrently. His Honour also declared him to have been convicted of a serious violent offence, although that appears to be an automatic consequence under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) of his being sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more for the offence charged in count 1.
The victim of these offences is Michael Birch. Since birth he has suffered from cerebral palsy and has been confined to a wheelchair, being unable to walk and capable of only restricted movements of his arms and hands. He was consequently unable to defend himself against attack. The applicant came from behind him, held his head back and cut his throat inflicting a 15 cm wound and severing the jugular vein. The applicant then returned and stabbed him three…

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 Tevita

Details

AGLC: R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131
Case: [2006] QCA 131
Decision Date: 28/04/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tevita involves the appellant, who was convicted of attempted murder and theft. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant had appealed against his sentence, seeking a reduction. The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and if not, whether it was appropriate to reduce the sentence on the basis of the appellant's plea of guilty.

The court examined the principles governing appeals against sentence, particularly focusing on the factors that justify a reduction in the sentence. The High Court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the appellant's plea of guilty did not automatically warrant a reduction. The court emphasised that each case must be assessed on its individual merits, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes committed and did not constitute an error warranting intervention.

Given the court's reasoning, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The appellant's application to reduce his sentence was not granted, and the original sentence stood as imposed by the lower court. The High Court upheld the sentence, reflecting its view that the punishment was commensurate with the crimes committed. The dismissal of the application concluded the appeal process without any alteration to the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131

Most Recent Citation

R v David [2006] QCA 206

Cases citing this decision · 10 of 10 shown

R v BEB
[2023] QCA 105 Para 33

…itchard & Ors; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] 1 Qd R 428; [2004] QCA 429. [12]To paraphrase what was said by the Court in R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131 at [10].…
R v Ali
[2018] QCA 212 Para 4

…d in R v Witchard & Ors; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] 1 Qd R 428; [2004] QCA 429. [31]To paraphrase what was said by the Court in R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131, [10].…
R v Graham
[2015] QCA 137 Para 15

…ed concurrently, for stealing. A serious violent offence declaration was made as an automatic consequence of the sentence on the first count. [10][2006] QCA 131.…
R v McMartin
[2014] QCA 279 Para 1

…ings had previously resulted in sentences between 14 years and life imprisonment. A review of some of those cases was conducted in R v Tevita .[2] [2][2006] QCA 131.…
R v John
[2014] QCA 86 Para 1

…ses of R v Woodman [19] and R v Tevita [20] supported a sentence in this case of between 18 and 20 years. [18][2003] QCA 326. [19][2009] QCA 197. [20][2006] QCA 131.…
R v Kay
[2012] QCA 327 Para 1

…The respondent relied on R v Tevita [18] and R v David .[19] [18][2006] QCA 131. [19][2006] QCA 206.…
R v Batchelor
[2009] QCA 150

…001] QCA 91, cited R v Rochester; ex parte (Qld) [2003] QCA 326, considered R v Sauvao [2006] QCA 331, cited R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131, considered COUNSEL: C L Morgan for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for…
R v Mallie; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2009] QCA 109 Para 1

…ted and frustrated". The community rightly expects courts to impose heavy deterrent penalties for such repetitive, gravely anti-social behaviour. [23][2006] QCA 131 at [10].…
R v. Hester
[2008] QCA 277 Para 1

…He identified R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131, in which 18 years imprisonment was imposed, as the top of the range of what would be applied to a person without a disability who pleaded guilty. He said that the circumstances of this case made it less serious than that of Tevita , although not by a long way. If the appli…
R v David
[2006] QCA 206 Para 1

…fter a review of recent sentences, his Honour said that the approximate range for attempts to kill was between 10 years to 17 years imprisonment. [11][2006] QCA 131; CA No 18 of 2006, 28 April 2006 at [10]. [12][2003] QCA 326; CA No 362 and CA No 399 of 2002, 1 August 2003.…

View all 10 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 7 of 7 shown

R v Witchard
[2004] QCA 429

…nsidered R v Schaefer [2001] QCA 327; CA No 89 of 2001, 10 August 2001, considered R v Streeton [1997] QCA 178 R v Witchard [2004] QCA 429; [2005] 1 Qd R 428, considered The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, cited COUNSEL: A J Rafter SC for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Que…
R v Rochester; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2003] QCA 326 Para 10

…e cases, two of which we mention later, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed. On the other hand, Williams JA in R v Rochester [2003] QCA 326, referring to past sentences in this field, recently reiterated that the approximate range for attempts to kill was generally from 10 years to about 17…
R v Schaefer
[2001] QCA 327 Para 13

…ce. She had an extensive criminal history and was said to constitute a threat to society. Her sentence of 16 years was not disturbed. In R v Schaefer [2001] QCA 327, the accused stabbed his mother (against whom he had a long standing resentment) seven or eight times, leaving her for dead in the bush and taking he…
R v Hardie
[1999] QCA 352 Para 12

…s that we should begin this appeal against sentence with a comparison of the sentences imposed for offences of a similar kind. One such is R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, which is another instance in which the accused cut his victim’s throat with a knife and stabbed her in the back and the head. Like the applicant her…
R v Lepp
[1998] QCA 411 Para 13

…In R v Lepp [1998] QCA 411, the accused, who was convicted after a trial, stabbed an officer of the Department of Families against whom she had an obsessive and irrational grievance. She had an extensive criminal history and was said to constitute a threat to society. Her sentence of 16 years was not disturbed. I…
R v Streeton
[1997] QCA 178 Para 16

…There are two appeals in each of which sentences of life imprisonment have been upheld. In one of them R v Streeton [1997] QCA 178, the appellant poured petrol over a six year old child (who was a complete stranger to him and who was playing in the school grounds at the time), and set fire to him with a cigarette…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 10

…the like, as might have been done in the present case. To that extent, courts do not seem in this area to apply the ruling in The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, 389, that no one should be punished for an offence of which he has not been convicted. Instead, the consequences for the victim have been used in dete…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Tevita [2006] QCA 131
PARTIES:	R v TEVITA, Sifa (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 18 of 2006 SC No 344 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 April 2006
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – where applicant sentenced for attempting to kill and stealing – applicant used a knife to cut the throat of wheelchair-bound complainant then later returned to stab him three times in the back – where promise of money by third party – guilty plea and youth considered – whether statutory maximum of life imprisonment warranted – whether sentence of 18 years imposed manifestly excessive
R v Bird & Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394, considered R v Day, unreported, CA 364 of 1990, 26 March, 1991, considered R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered R v Hewitt, unreported, CA 405 of 1993, 3 December 1993, considered R v Jervis [1993] 1 Qd R 643, considered R v Lepp [1998] QCA 411, considered R v Rochester; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 326, considered R v Schaefer [2001] QCA 327; CA No 89 of 2001, 10 August 2001, considered R v Streeton [1997] QCA 178 R v Witchard [2004] QCA 429; [2005] 1 Qd R 428, considered The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter SC for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent