R v Uluivuya - [2025] VSC 29

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0098

Between:
THE KING
-and-
EDWARD ULUIVUYA	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 December 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Uluivuya
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 29

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence — Accused, without consent, falsely implicated complainant in driving infringements in order to avoid demerit points — Upon learning this, complainant made threats to accused — Frightened and angered by threats, accused followed complainant to his front door, leapt from shadows, and struck him repeatedly to head with blunt side of small axe, causing serious injury — Accused continued to strike and injure complainant after incapacitating him — Accused fled without offering any assistance — Complainant suffered multiple head injuries, requiring surgery — Complainant now largely recovered physically, but still suffers psychological sequalae — Serious example of offence — Prosecution case unlikely to succeed on identity absent accused’s admissions to police — Plea of guilty following sentence indication — Remorse — No criminal history at 55 — Strong work history — Excellent prospects of rehabilitation — Accused’s PTSD makes imprisonment more burdensome — Importance of general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and rehabilitation as sentencing purposes — Specific deterrence and protection of only minor moment — Parsimony — Sentence of six years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of four years — But for plea of guilty, sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of six years — Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 198B & 207‑‍209; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 15A & 16; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA, 10, 10A & 18.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Lewis SC	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the accused	Mr M McGrath with Mr J Moutsias	Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

Edward Uluivuya, now aged 55, faces a charge on indictment alleging that, at Rowville on 25 June 2023, he intentionally caused serious injury to Ropate Raqauqau, then aged 60, in circumstances of gross violence.[1]
[1]Contrary to s 15A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

On 15 October 2024, I heard an application for a sentence indication on that charge on the agreed basis that the circumstances of gross violence were constituted by Mr Uluivuya’s continuing to cause injury to Mr Raqauqau after he was incapacitated.[2] At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that, if Mr Uluivuya pleaded guilty to that charge at the first practicable opportunity, I would impose a sentence not exceeding six years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of four years.[3] I gave brief ex tempore reasons for that decision. Later the same day, Mr Uluivuya took up the sentencing indication and pleaded guilty.
[2]Pursuant to s 15A(2)(e) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[3]As to the power to give a sentence indication, and its effect once given,…

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 Uluivuya 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: [2025] VSC 29
Decision Date: 7 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Uluivuya, the defendant was found guilty of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The altercation began when the accused, Uluivuya, falsely implicated the complainant in driving infringements in order to avoid demerit points. Upon learning this, the complainant made threats to Uluivuya. This prompted Uluivuya to follow the complainant to his front door, where he leapt from the shadows and struck the complainant repeatedly on the head with the blunt side of a small axe. This attack caused serious injuries, including multiple head injuries, requiring surgery. Uluivuya continued to strike the complainant even after he was incapacitated. Uluivuya fled the scene without offering any assistance to the complainant. Although the complainant has largely recovered physically, he still suffers from psychological sequelae.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentence for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the accused's remorse, his lack of criminal history, his strong work history, his prospects of rehabilitation, and the impact of his PTSD on the ability to serve a custodial sentence. The court also had to consider the purposes of sentencing, including general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment, and rehabilitation, as well as the lesser considerations of specific deterrence and protection of the community. Ultimately, the court had to balance these factors to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.

The court found that this was a serious example of the offence and that the prosecution case was unlikely to succeed on identity absent the accused’s admissions to police. The court took into account the accused’s guilty plea, his remorse, and his excellent prospects of rehabilitation, along with his strong work history and lack of criminal history. The court also considered the importance of general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment, and rehabilitation as sentencing purposes. While specific deterrence and protection of the community were minor considerations, the court found the need for parsimony in sentencing was paramount. The court sentenced Uluivuya to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. But for the guilty plea, the sentence would have been nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.

The court made final orders in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 198B & 207-‍209; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 15A & 16; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA, 10, 10A & 18.

Orders