Regina v Toomalati - [2000] NSWCCA 105

CITATION: REGINA -v- TOOMALATI [2000] NSWCCA 105

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60598/99

HEARING DATE(S): 22/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 March 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA
Kaisarina Rosalita TOOMALATI

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 1; Powell JA at 35,37; Hulme J at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ford ADCJ

COUNSEL : Mr Maxwell Q.C. - Crown
Mr Hammil - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor
T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: crown appeal - malciously inflict grievous bodily harm - inadequacy of sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act (NSW) 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Stokes (1990) 51 A Crim R 25
R v Day (1998) 100 A Crim R 275
R v Niga (unreported, NSW CCA 13 April 1994)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed; Sentence below confirmed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60598 of 1999

POWELL JA
HULME J
DOWD J

REGINA -v- Kaisarina Rosalita TOOMALATI

1 DOWD J: This is a crown appeal pursuant to s.5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (“the Act”) against a sentence imposed by Ford ADCJ at Campbelltown District Court on 24 September 1999.
2 On 28 July 1999 an indictment was presented containing one count of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm in breach of s.33 of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Crimes Act”), and an alternative count of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm in breach of s.35 of the Crimes Act.
3   The respondent pleaded not guilty to the first count but guilty to the alternative count before Moore DCJ on 28 July 1999. The Crown accepted the plea in full discharge and satisfaction of the indictment.
4   On 24 September 1999 the respondent was sentenced by Ford DCJ who deferred passing sentence upon the respondent entering into a recognisance for herself in the sum of $500, on condition that she be of good behaviour for a period of three years and appear at any time in respect of any breach of that recognisance. It was a further condition on the recognisance that she accept the supervision and guidance of the Probation and Parole Service and obey all reasonable directions of the officers of that service particularly to follow recommendations as to counselling with regard to her anger management.

The facts

5   On Tuesday 27 October 1998 at 3.10 pm the respondent went to the Pacific Islander Consultancy Service, where the victim, Muia Allen, was employed. The respondent knew the victim, a young woman of seventeen years, as she had been having an affair with the respondent’s husband.
6   The victim had just returned to the office and found the respondent sitting with another Samoan friend named Toe and Toe’s Samoan husband in the reception area. They had been sitting there for some time waiting for the victim to return. As the victim entered the reception area she saw the respondent and her friends and said “Is there anything wrong ?” The respondent replied “Where’s Tuu’u?” referring to the respondent’s husband. An argument…

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 Regina v Toomalati

Details

AGLC: Regina v Toomalati [2000] NSWCCA 105
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 105
Decision Date: 22 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Toomalati, the appellant was convicted of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm upon a woman. The incident occurred in a domestic setting, leading to the victim sustaining serious injuries. The case was appealed to the High Court of Australia, which considered whether the original sentence imposed was inadequate. The appellant argued that the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the severity of the crime, which involved a premeditated attack causing significant harm. The central legal issue revolved around the adequacy of the sentence in light of the appellant's culpability and the gravity of the offence. The court needed to determine if the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, warranting a revision.

The High Court examined the principles of sentencing for grievous bodily harm, focusing on the need for a sentence that adequately reflects the seriousness of the crime. The court considered the nature of the appellant's actions, including the deliberate and violent manner in which the harm was inflicted. The court also evaluated the circumstances surrounding the offence, such as the relationship between the parties and the impact of the injuries sustained by the victim. The judges took into account the appellant's criminal history and the need for general deterrence, while also considering the principles of proportionality and individual justice. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the original sentence was indeed inadequate and did not appropriately reflect the severity of the crime committed.

The High Court determined that the original sentence did not adequately address the culpability of the appellant or the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for resentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for grievous bodily harm are commensurate with the nature of the crime and the degree of culpability. The final orders included a direction for the lower court to resentence the appellant, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case. The court's decision underscored the necessity for sentences to appropriately reflect the seriousness of violent crimes and the need for justice to be served.

Orders