R v Tuifua

Case [2024] NSWDC 246

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tuifua [2024] NSWDC 246
Hearing dates: 27, 28 and 30 May, 3, 4, 5 and 6 June 2024
Decision date: 12 June 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:

Not Guilty of the Count on Indictment and the statutory alternative Count.

Catchwords:

CRIME - Judge Alone Trial - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - recklessly causing grievous bodily harm

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1990 (NSW), s33(1)(a) and s35(4); Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s191

Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Rex (Crown)

Malia Tuifua
Representation:

Mr Christoff (Crown Prosecutor)

Mr Eurell (Counsel for the Accused)
File Number(s): 2022/262378
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. On 27 May 2024, I arraigned Malia Tuifua on indictment 7.2.  Upon that arraignment, Ms Tuifua pleaded not guilty. 

  2. In the judge‑alone trial which commenced upon that arraignment, the Crown was represented by a Crown Prosecutor and the accused was represented by Mr Eurell of counsel. 

  3. There was only one count on the indictment.  The count was that: "On or about 30 July 2022, at Blackett in the State of New South Wales, [Malia Tuifua] wounded Opeta Tielu with intent to cause grievous bodily harm."

  4. The count on the indictment concerns an alleged breach of s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW). 

  5. Although the indictment contained only one count, there is an available alternative statutory count if I found Ms Tuifua not guilty of the count on the indictment, which the Crown Prosecutor referred to in his opening - that is, recklessly causing grievous bodily harm (cf s 35(4) of the Crimes Act).

  6. In order for the Court to find Ms Tuifua guilty of the count on the indictment, the Crown must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each of the elements of that count.  It is, therefore, not for Ms Tuifua to prove her innocence, but for the Crown to prove her guilt to the high standard I have referred to. 

  7. “Beyond reasonable doubt” are ordinary everyday words, and that is how I shall apply them.

  8. The two elements of the offence on the indictment are that:

1.  Ms Tuifua wounded Opeta Tielu. In this context, “wound” is an injury involving the breaking or cutting of the interior layer of the skin (the dermis) - the breaking of the outer layer (the epidermis) is not sufficient; and

2.  At the time of the wounding, Ms Tuifua intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Opeta Tielu. In this context, intention can be implied if it is the only rational inference in the circumstances; and in considering whether there was such an intention, regard may be had to any weapon used or the means employed to inflict the harm.

  1. As the evidence in the trial developed, it is only the first element which requires close attention. 

  2. I shall determine all relevant issues of fact according to the evidence: that is, the oral testimony of witnesses; and the contents of exhibits. 

  3. In considering the oral evidence of a witness,…

Continue reading R v Tuifua

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tuifua [2024] NSWDC 246
Case
[2024] NSWDC 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tuifua involved the defendant, Tuifua, who was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the alternative of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard by a judge alone in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the defendant's culpability for the assault, with the Crown contending that Tuifua had deliberately inflicted the injuries while the defence argued that any harm was unintentional and occurred in the heat of the moment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Tuifua had intended to cause grievous bodily harm or, at the very least, that he had recklessly caused such harm. The defence contested the evidence provided, particularly the credibility of the witnesses and the circumstances leading up to the incident. The court had to weigh the evidence and determine whether the assault was intentional or reckless.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the requisite intent or recklessness for either charge. The court was not convinced that the Crown had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court acquitted Tuifua of both counts. The reasoning hinged on the lack of direct evidence linking Tuifua to the infliction of grievous bodily harm and the presence of reasonable doubt about the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident.

The court made orders acquitting Tuifua of both the count on indictment and the statutory alternative count. The defendant was thus found not guilty on both charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not Guilty of the Count on Indictment and the statutory alternative Count.

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.