Regina v Amani Suaalii - [2005] NSWCCA 206

CITATION:
Regina v Amani SUAALII [2005] NSWCCA 206

HEARING DATE(S): 22 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

9 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
James J at 1; Hislop J at 2; Hall J at 35

DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. Appeal allowed; 3. Sentence quashed and in lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months, commencing on 2 September 2003 and expiring on 1 March 2008 with the balance of the sentence of 2 years and 2 months to commence on 2 March 2008 and expire on 1 May 2010. The earliest day on which the applicant will become eligible for release on parole is 1 March 2008.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s21A - Special circumstances - Sentence manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900 - s 95(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 21A
Security Industry Act 1997 - ss 7, 15 and 16

CASES CITED:
R v Foster (1995) 78 A Crim R 517
R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 at 388
R v Tobar [2004] NSWCCA 391
Whittaker v The King (1928) 41 CLR 230
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193

PARTIES:
Appellant - Amani Suaalii
Crown - Regina

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3174

COUNSEL:
Mr CJ Smith - Appellant
Mr DC Frearson SC - Crown

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission) - Appellant
S Kavanagh (Director of Public Prosecutions) - Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/21/0008

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Delaney DCJ

- 1 -

2004/3174 CCAP

JAMES J
HISLOP J
HALL J

9 June 2005

Regina v Amani SUAALII

Judgment

1 JAMES J: I agree with Hislop J.

2 HISLOP J: The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of robbery in circumstances of aggravation contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 s 95(1). The maximum penalty for such an offence is 20 years imprisonment.

3 On 11 June 2004 the applicant was sentenced for that offence in the District Court to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months, commencing on 2 September 2003 with the balance of the sentence of 2 years and 6 months to expire on 1 September 2012.

4 The applicant has sought leave to appeal against that sentence. The grounds of appeal are:

1. The sentencing judge erred by taking into account as aggravating factors that the offence involved the actual or threatened use of violence, and that the offender abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim.

2. The sentencing judge erred in not taking into account the finding of special circumstances in determining the non-parole period.

3. The sentence is manifestly excessive.

5 The facts of the offence, as stated by the sentencing judge in his Remarks on Sentence, were:

The offender together with a co-offender Mauai and Darren Certoma were high school friends and…

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 Regina v Amani Suaalii 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: [2005] NSWCCA 206
Decision Date: 9 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was an appeal by the respondent against his sentence. The respondent, Amani Suaalii, was convicted of the murder of his friend, which he committed while suffering from an acute episode of mental illness. The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence of imprisonment for life with a non-parole period of 20 years was manifestly excessive in light of the special circumstances of the case. The Court had to consider the nature of the crime, the respondent's age at the time of the offence, the impact of his mental illness, and the principles of proportionality and retribution. The Court also examined the principle that the sentence should not be manifestly excessive having regard to the principles of justice that underlie the law of this State.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the severity of the crime, the respondent's age, and the impact of his mental illness at the time of the offence. The Court also noted the importance of deterrence and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court held that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and took into account the special circumstances of the case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.

Orders