Legal Research
Cases
R v Tuki (No. 4)

R v Tuki (No. 4)

Case [2013] NSWSC 1864 13 December 2013

Sentencing

Criminal Liability

Accessory After the Fact

Possession of Offensive Weapon

Possession of Prohibited Firearm

Participation in Criminal Group

Conditional Liberty

Mental Condition Relevance

Deterrence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tuki (No. 4) [2013] NSWSC 1864
Hearing dates: 22 November 2013
Decision date: 13 December 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
For Count 1, participation in a criminal group, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years and three months commencing on 4 July 2010 and expiring on 3 October 2012, with a balance of term of nine months commencing on 4 October 2012 and expiring on 3 July 2013.
For Count 5, being an accessory after the fact to the armed robbery of Tracey Burgess and at the time causing grievous bodily harm to Kesley Burgess, taking into account the matter on the Form 1, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of five years commencing on 4 July 2012 and expiring on 3 July 2017, with a balance of term of two years and six months commencing on 4 July 2017 and expiring on 3 January 2020.
For Count 7, whilst in company, being in possession of an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of four years commencing on 4 July 2014 and expiring on 3 July 2018, with a balance of term of three years commencing on 4 July 2018 and expiring on 3 July 2021.
For Count 8, possession of a prohibited firearm, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of three years commencing on 4 July 2014 and expiring on 3 July 2017, with a balance of term of one year commencing on 4 July 2017 and expiring on 3 July 2018.
The earliest date for release to parole is 3 July 2018.
The total effective sentence is one comprising a non-parole period of eight years with a balance of term of three years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - pleas of guilty - participate in a criminal group (s.93T(1) Crimes Act 1900) - accessory after the fact to armed robbery involving the infliction of grievous bodily harm (s.349(2) Crimes Act 1900) - possess offensive weapon with intent to commit indictable offence (intentionally cause grievous bodily harm (s.33B(2) Crimes Act 1900) - possess prohibited firearm (s.7(1) Firearms Act 1996) - participation in criminal group over five weeks - participation ended by arrest - active and senior participant in criminal group - group involved in drug supply and in home invasions inflicting injuries upon residents - objective gravity of offences - offences in breach of conditional liberty - relevance of Offender's mental condition - need for specific and general deterrence - partial accumulation of sentences appropriate
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Firearms Act 1996
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hawkins v R [2011] NSWCCA 153

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 Tuki (No. 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Tuki (No. 4) [2013] NSWSC 1864
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1864
Decision Date: 13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Tuki, who was charged with multiple offences related to his involvement in a criminal group. The charges included participating in a criminal group, being an accessory after the fact to armed robbery with grievous bodily harm, possessing an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, and possessing a prohibited firearm. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant's extensive criminal conduct, taking into account the objective gravity of the offences, the defendant's role in the criminal group, the breach of conditional liberty, and the relevance of his mental condition.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the appropriate weight to give to the objective gravity of the offences, the role of the defendant within the criminal group, the relevance of the defendant's mental condition, and the need for both specific and general deterrence. The court had to consider the cumulative effect of the offences and whether partial accumulation of sentences was appropriate. Additionally, the court needed to balance the defendant's culpability with the potential for rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending.

The court found that the objective gravity of the offences was high, given the defendant's active and senior role in a criminal group involved in serious crimes such as drug supply and home invasions. The court considered the breach of conditional liberty and the defendant's mental condition but ultimately determined that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of the offences. The need for specific and general deterrence was also emphasised. The court concluded that partial accumulation of sentences was appropriate, taking into account the totality of the defendant's criminal conduct and the need to deter both the defendant and the community from similar criminal activities.

The final orders of the court included a sentence that reflected the severity of the defendant's crimes and the need for both specific and general deterrence. The court imposed a combined sentence that considered the cumulative effect of the offences and the defendant's role within the criminal group. The sentence also took into account the breach of conditional liberty and the need to address the risk of reoffending while considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders