R v Tufuga and Kepu; ex parte - [2003] QCA 171

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tufuga & Kepu; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 171

PARTIES:

R
v
TUFUGA, Peter John
(respondent)
KEPU, Ma’atano
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 74 of 2003
CA No 75 of 2003
DC No 1006 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDINGS:

Sentence Appeals by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 April 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeals by the Attorney-General dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where respondents convicted of various assaults on two complainants – where assaults a disproportionate reaction to earlier provocative driving by one of the complainants – where neither complainant seriously injured – where respondents had impeccable backgrounds and unblemished records – whether sentences imposed manifestly inadequate

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, cited
Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227, cited
R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
L Menolotto for the respondent in CA No 74 of 2003
T Carmody SC for the respondent in CA No 75 of 2003

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Keith Scott & Associates for the respondent in CA No 74 of 2003
Russo Lawyers for the respondent in CA No 75 of 2003

MCMURDO P: I agree that the appeals should be dismissed for the reasons given by Williams JA.

WILLIAMS JA: The respondent Tufuga was sentenced after pleading guilty on 21 February 2003 to six months imprisonment on one count of wilful damage, 18 months imprisonment on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, and four months imprisonment on one count of common assault. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, and were suspended after serving three months thereof with an operational period of 18 months.

The respondent Kepu was sentenced after pleading guilty on the same date to 12 months imprisonment on one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, nine months imprisonment on one count of wilful damage, two years imprisonment on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, six months imprisonment on one count of common assault, and nine months imprisonment on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, and were suspended after serving five months thereof with an operational period of two years.

From those sentences the Attorney-General appeals to this court contending that they were manifestly inadequate.

The charges arose out of an incident which occurred on 5 May 2001. The complainants,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Tufuga and Kepu; ex parte 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] QCA 171
Decision Date: 2 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tufuga and Kepu; ex parte, the Attorney-General appealed against the sentences imposed on the respondents, Tufuga and Kepu, who were convicted of various assaults on two complainants. The respondents were found guilty of assault after a confrontation that arose from an earlier incident involving provocative driving by one of the complainants. Neither of the complainants sustained serious injuries during the altercation, and both respondents had previously unblemished records and impeccable backgrounds. The Attorney-General contended that the sentences handed down were manifestly inadequate given the nature of the offenses and the respondents' criminal history.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the lower court were manifestly inadequate. The court was required to consider the proportionality of the sentences in light of the severity of the assaults, the background of the respondents, and the principle of deterrence. The court needed to determine if the sentences were sufficiently severe to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to serve as a deterrent to others who might be inclined to commit similar offenses.

The court dismissed the Attorney-General's appeal, finding that the sentences imposed were appropriate. The court emphasised that while the assaults were serious, neither complainant was seriously injured, and the respondents' backgrounds and prior records were unblemished. The court further noted that the sentences reflected the nature of the offense and adequately served the purposes of punishment and deterrence. The proportionality of the sentences was upheld, and the appeals by the Attorney-General were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals by the Attorney-General 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.

CITATION:	R v Tufuga & Kepu; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 171
PARTIES:	R v TUFUGA, Peter John (respondent) KEPU, Ma’atano (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 74 of 2003 CA No 75 of 2003 DC No 1006 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS:	Sentence Appeals by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 April 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeals by the Attorney-General dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where respondents convicted of various assaults on two complainants – where assaults a disproportionate reaction to earlier provocative driving by one of the complainants – where neither complainant seriously injured – where respondents had impeccable backgrounds and unblemished records – whether sentences imposed manifestly inadequate Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, cited Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227, cited R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Copley for the appellant L Menolotto for the respondent in CA No 74 of 2003 T Carmody SC for the respondent in CA No 75 of 2003
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Keith Scott & Associates for the respondent in CA No 74 of 2003 Russo Lawyers for the respondent in CA No 75 of 2003