District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tongia Halisi Heaki [2021] NSWDC 297 Hearing dates: 4 June 2021 Decision date: 02 July 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [108]
Catchwords: One count of reckless grievous bodily harm; one count of destroy or damage property less than $2000 in value.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Culbert v R [2021] NSWCCA 38
Haoui v R (2008) 188 A Crim R 331; [2008] NSWCCA 209
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135
R v Rhodes [2017] NSWSC 694
Swan v R [2016] NSWCCA 79
Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Tongia Halisi Heaki (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
K McKenzie (Solicitor)
P Johnson (Counsel)
File Number(s): 20/124362
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
-
The offender is to be sentenced for one count of reckless grievous bodily harm in company pursuant to s 35(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 for an offence that occurred on 26 April 2020. The maximum penalty for the offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.
-
A related offence pursuant to a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 is sequence 2, destroy or damage property less than $2000. The maximum penalty for that offence is two years imprisonment and/or a fine of 20 penalty units.
-
The offender was arrested on 26 April 2020 and has been in custody since that date. He was born on 15 September 1982 and the co-offender was Naquita Heaki, his wife.
The sentence hearing
-
The sentence hearing took place on 4 June 2021. The Crown sentence summary became Ex A, and it included an agreed statement of facts which may be summarised as follows.
-
The offender and his wife lived in premises at Hurstville with their three children aged between four and nine years of age. On the evening of Saturday 25 April 2020 the co-offender’s sister, Eryka Hakaraie, arrived to babysit the three children overnight.
-
The next morning the offender and co-offender returned home. At approximately 9am, Eryka observed her sister to be in an agitated state. The co-offender told Eryka that the offender was concerned that something had happened to their friend Astrid and that they were trying to contact Astrid but that she was not responding. Thereafter, Eryka observed both the offender and co-offender to engage in manic behaviour and discuss an unknown male person who they thought had hurt their friend Astrid. The co-offender described their car which was parked outside their home as a crime scene and when Eryka asked “what’s going on?” the co-offender said “we think our friend T is dead in the car”.
-
The offender then opened the doors of the car and boot and removed items from it. The co-offender was hysterical, yelling “call the cops, call the cops”,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Tongia Halisi Heaki and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the appropriate weight to give to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, particularly given the defendant's history of offending and the impact of alcohol on his behaviour. The legal issues included assessing the appropriate sentence for the offences committed and the need for any specific sentencing principles to be applied, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation.
The court took into account the defendant's prior convictions and the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the role of alcohol. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the underlying issues contributing to the defendant's offending behaviour. Ultimately, the court decided that a full-time custodial sentence was warranted, considering the need for general deterrence and the protection of the community. The final orders, including the specific sentence, were detailed in [108] of the judgement.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [108]
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.