R v Tukuafu - [2022] NSWDC 717

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tukuafu [2022] NSWDC 717
Hearing dates: 13 December 2022
Date of orders: 13 December 2022
Decision date: 13 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 1 year 1 month to be served in the community subject to Intensive Correction Order

Catchwords:
CRIME – Supply prohibited drug - participate in a criminal group
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty plea - young immature offender - acting under influence of older brother – parity - lengthy time on remand – deterrent effect of time on remand - need for monitoring and supervision in the community - community safety best served by ICO

Cases Cited:
Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
R v Tukuafu [2022] NSWDC 671

Category: Sentence
Parties: Samiu Tukuafu (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Booker (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
Ms S Knox (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2021/00251475

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

Sentencing judges must attempt to deal with every matter put in dispute and synthesise all relevant factors and explain the reasons for their decision. Today I must be as succinct as possible because it is late in the day and we have already lost video link transmission to Parklea gaol on multiple occasions and will do so again. In light of the orders that I will be imposing, the sooner I can finish it the better. These constraints do not mean however that I can ignore my obligations to give a sentencing judgment.
Today Samiu Tukuafu adhered to guilty pleas entered in the Local Court to two serious offences: supplying a prohibited drug, being a quantity of methylamphetamine, and participating in a criminal group. He asks that when I sentence him for the supply matter, I take into account two other supplies on a Form 1.
His guilty plea justifies a reduction of 25% on the otherwise necessary sentence to reflect its utilitarian value.
The matters on the Form 1 do operate to increase the sentence of the matter to which they relate. I do so as part of my instinctive synthesis approach, but greater weight should be given to personal deterrence and retribution for the crime for sentence. Here, matters on the Form 1 help illustrate the sort of drug supply business that the offender engaged in.
There are two matters for sentence. An aggravating feature of the supply offence is that it was part of organised criminal activity. But there is separate charge of participating in a criminal group. And the particulars of participation are essentially the same as the matters that aggravate the sentence for the supply offence’s sentence. Accordingly concurrent sentences are required, because to do otherwise would double count matters going to the seriousness of the principal offence.

Agreed Facts

The offender was aged 18 and working in the concreting industry. His brother came under the influence of a member of…

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 Tukuafu

Details

AGLC: R v Tukuafu [2022] NSWDC 717
Case: [2022] NSWDC 717
Decision Date: 13 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tukuafu was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant was charged with the supply of a prohibited drug and participating in a criminal group. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges, which included the supply of methylamphetamine and involvement in a criminal group. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering various factors such as the early guilty plea, the defendant's age and immaturity, the influence of the defendant's older brother, the need for parity, the lengthy time the defendant had already spent on remand, the deterrent effect of the time on remand, and the need for monitoring and supervision in the community.

The court considered the defendant's early guilty plea and the mitigating factors such as the defendant's age and immaturity, as well as the influence of the defendant's older brother. The court also considered the need for parity in sentencing and the lengthy time the defendant had already spent on remand. The court found that the time spent on remand had a deterrent effect and that the community's safety would be best served by imposing an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) instead of a custodial sentence. The court concluded that the defendant should be sentenced to an aggregate sentence of one year and one month, to be served in the community subject to an ICO.

The court made orders that the defendant be sentenced to an aggregate sentence of one year and one month, to be served in the community subject to an ICO. The court considered the relevant factors and determined that an ICO was the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The court recognised the mitigating factors but also considered the need for community safety and the deterrent effect of the time spent on remand. The court believed that the defendant would benefit from the structure and support provided by an ICO and that it would be in the best interests of the community. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all the relevant factors and the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 1 year 1 month to be served in the community subject to Intensive Correction Order

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Tukuafu [2022] NSWDC 717
Hearing dates:	13 December 2022
Date of orders:	13 December 2022
Decision date:	13 December 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 1 year 1 month to be served in the community subject to Intensive Correction Order
Catchwords:	CRIME – Supply prohibited drug - participate in a criminal group SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty plea - young immature offender - acting under influence of older brother – parity - lengthy time on remand – deterrent effect of time on remand - need for monitoring and supervision in the community - community safety best served by ICO
Cases Cited:	Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56 R v Tukuafu [2022] NSWDC 671
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Samiu Tukuafu (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Booker (for the offender) Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) Ms S Knox (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2021/00251475