R v Wasarua

Case [2024] NSWDC 643


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wasarua [2024] NSWDC 643
Hearing dates: 12/8/24-23/8/24, 1/11/24, 15/11/24
Date of orders: 15/11/24
Decision date: 15 November 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months with a NPP of 3 years 8 months (22/8/24-21/4/28).

I find special circumstances.

Indicatives:

Count 1 – 4 years 2 months with NPP 2 years 9 months

Count 2 – 5 years 3 months with NPP 3 years 6 months.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Sexual intercourse without consent

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Commonwealth DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

Category:Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Timoci Wasarua - Offender
Representation: Mr H Sutherland for Crown
Mr I Wallach for Offender
File Number(s): 22/332923
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication of the identity of the victim.

remarks on sentence

  1. The offender, Mr Wasarua, stood trial between 12 and 26 August 2024, at the District Court at Parramatta on an indictment containing two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. On that latter date, the jury found the offender guilty of both counts.

  2. I note that a sentence hearing was set for Friday, 1 November 2024 but the proceedings were only partly completed that day because counsel for the offender indicated that he may wish to tender some additional evidence and make further submissions. Although no adequate explanation was provided as to why these matters had not been attended to in a timely fashion, I directed that any further material be filed and served by 5 November 2024. Despite that direction, no material was received until the afternoon of 12 November, when supplementary written submissions were filed on behalf of the offender and, on the morning of 13 November 2024, two letters were filed and served.

  3. It is, of course, open to me to ignore this material, given that it was filed well outside the timetable, and with no explanation as to why that was so. Although that course of action has some attraction, it seems to me that it may involve punishing the offender himself for the apparent inadequacies of his legal representation. I will, therefore, have regard to this additional material to which I will make reference later in these remarks.

  4. The offender is to be sentenced for two offences under s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of seven years is specified. The maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are important guide posts in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard.

FACTS

  1. Turning to factual matters, given that this was a finding of guilt after trial, the facts are for me to determine but must be consistent with the jury’s verdicts. Any aggravating matters need to be proved to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, whereas any matters in mitigation need only…

Continue reading R v Wasarua

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Wasarua [2024] NSWDC 643
Case
[2024] NSWDC 643
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wasarua involved the defendant, Wasarua, who was convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal against sentence was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Wasarua, considering the gravity of the offence and the principles of sentencing under Queensland law. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in light of the statutory and common law guidelines, particularly regarding the cumulative effect of multiple offences and the non-parole period.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, which involved two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The legal issues included whether the trial judge correctly applied the principles of totality, the relevance of special circumstances, and whether the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes. The court also considered the impact of the offences on the victims and the need for general and specific deterrence. After a thorough review of the sentencing principles and the evidence presented, the court concluded that the trial judge's sentence was appropriate, taking into account the severity of the offences and the need to protect the community.

In its reasoning, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in sentencing Wasarua. The court agreed that special circumstances existed due to the nature of the offences and the impact on the victims. The aggregate sentence of five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months, was deemed proportionate to the crimes committed. The court further noted that the sentence provided adequate deterrence and reflected the community's standards of justice. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months with a NPP of 3 years 8 months (22/8/24-21/4/28).

I find special circumstances.

Indicatives:

Count 1 – 4 years 2 months with NPP 2 years 9 months

Count 2 – 5 years 3 months with NPP 3 years 6 months.

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.