District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Toafa [2019] NSWDC 361 Hearing dates: 10 April 2019 Date of orders: 10 April 2019 Decision date: 10 April 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: A sentence of imprisonment of seven years with a non-parole period of three years, eight months: at [34].
Catchwords: SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Relevant considerations
SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Sentence by State court for offence against Commonwealth law
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — objective seriousness — role of offender — Moral culpability — Circumstances of offence — plea of guiltyLegislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)Cases Cited: Cheun v R [2009] NSWCCA 116
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Blackman; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Jomaa [2014] NSWCCA 90
DPP (Cth) v De la Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Klomfar v R [2019] NSWCCA 61
Pham v R; Tang v R [2012] VSCA 101
R v Davidson [2009] NSWCCA 150
R v Holland [2011] NSWCCA 65
R v Labanon [2006] QCA 529
R v Moore [2005] NSWCCA 212
R v Xiao [2018] NSWCCA 2
Tyler v Regina; Regina v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247
Webber v R [2014] NSWCCA 111Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Timothy Toafa (Offender)Representation: Ms Burr (Crown)
Mr Goldworthy (Offender)
File Number(s): 2018/18360
Judgment
-
Mr and Mrs Toafa are committed Christians and they brought up three children under the strict, but happy, guidance of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They sit here today in Court to see their youngest son Timothy Toafa, born in 1990, facing sentence for an offence which carries a maximum penalty life imprisonment, under s 307 of the Criminal Code (Cth) of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug.
-
He has been in custody since his arrest on 17 January 2018.
-
It is conceded that, when the sentencing court takes account of all the objective and subjective factors for the purposes of sentencing, a significant term of fulltime custody is required and it is unnecessary to consider any alternatives.
-
The short facts that can be distilled revolve around the ultimate importation of 32 kilograms of MDMA with a 77.9% purity. Mr Toafa pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest possible opportunity and it is common ground that, in accordance with the decision of R v Xiao [2018] NSWCCA 2 in relation to Commonwealth sentences, a discount for the utilitarian value of the plea and the willingness to facilitate the course of justice should be in the order of 25% on the term of imprisonment.
-
The agreed facts together, with the sworn and largely unchallenged evidence of the offender today, demonstrate that he was a good athlete and not a good student. He was gullible, naive and trusting and not worldly wise. I am satisfied of that by the evidence of Mr Toafa and the evidence of his…
Continue reading R v Toafa
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Toafa [2019] NSWDC 361
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 361
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for Toafa, considering factors such as the objective seriousness of the offences, the role Toafa played in the criminal activity, his moral culpability, and the circumstances of the offence. The court also considered Toafa's early guilty plea, which was a mitigating factor.
The court assessed the severity of the offences and Toafa's substantial role in orchestrating and executing the fraudulent scheme. It was noted that the victims were vulnerable and that the deception caused significant financial loss. The court found Toafa's actions to be highly culpable, and while his plea of guilty was a mitigating factor, it was not sufficient to significantly reduce the sentence. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of seven years, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months, recognising the need for general deterrence and denunciation.
Orders
Orders of the court
A sentence of imprisonment of seven years with a non-parole period of three years, eight months: at [34].
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.