Legal Research
Cases
Ta'ala v R

Ta'ala v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 132 16 June 2008

Criminal Liability

Sentence

Determinate Sentences

Cumulation

Non Parole Period

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Ta'ala v R [2008] NSWCCA 132

HEARING DATE(S): 29 April 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 June 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell JA at 1; Grove J at 2; Johnson J at 50

DECISION: Appeal allowed in part - see orders at par 49

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - sentence - two counts of murder - extreme violence - second killing designed to prevent report to police of first murder - determinate sentences imposed although second offence assessed in worst category - cumulation - intention to set non parole period at 75 percent of total not implemented - adjustment to specification of non parole period on second count

LEGISLATION CITED: s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Dunn [2006] NSWCCA 12
R v Folbigg [2005] 152 A Crim R 35
R v Lo [2003] NSWCCA 313

PARTIES: Jerome Marjani TA'ALA - Appellant
REGINA - Respondent/Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2003/6130

COUNSEL: P Byrne SC - Appellant
P Miller - Respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS: Ross Hill & Associates - Appellant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70238/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Davidson AJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 30 July 2004

2003/6130

CAMPBELL JA
GROVE J
JOHNSON J
16 June 2008

Jerome Marjani TA’ALA v REGINA

Judgment

1 CAMPBELL JA: I agree with Grove J.

2 GROVE J: This is an application for extension of time for seeking leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed on 30 July 2004 and, if granted, to proceed with that application. At the hearing the Court received argument on the merits and indicated that the issues of extension of time and leave would be dealt with when judgment was delivered. The Crown opposed the granting of an extension. The magnitude of the sentences which I will shortly detail supplies sufficient reason not to apply a time bar nor to refuse leave to appeal. It is not necessary to explore the procedural failures whereby the applicant did not comply with time limits for filing notices and grounds of appeal and I would grant the extension and leave to appeal and proceed to a determination of the merits.

3 The appellant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court before Davidson AJ to two counts of murder, for each of which a prescribed maximum penalty of imprisonment for life was available. Both killings took place at Sutherland on 28 May 2002. On the first count for the murder of Mark O’Callaghan the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 26 years commencing on 29 May 2002 with a non parole period of 19 years 6 months expiring on 28 November 2021, and on the second count for the murder of Tammy Lee (Tamika) MacKenzie to a total term of 35 years commencing on 29 May 2014 with a non parole period of 26 years 6 months expiring on 28 November 2040. The overall result…

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 Ta'ala v R

Details

AGLC: Ta'ala v R [2008] NSWCCA 132
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 132
Decision Date: 16 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ta'ala v R, the accused, Ta'ala, was convicted of two counts of murder. The first murder involved the killing of his wife, and the second murder was of a friend who was killed to prevent the reporting of the first murder to the police. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the primary focus was on the sentencing implications of the two murders and the appropriate non-parole periods. The court was tasked with determining the cumulative effect of the two offences and the appropriate non-parole periods for each count, taking into account the extreme violence and the intent behind the second murder.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the sentencing principles applicable to cumulative offences, particularly where one offence was committed to prevent the reporting of the other. The court had to consider whether the second offence should be assessed in the worst category due to the extreme violence and premeditated nature of the crime. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate non-parole periods for each count, ensuring that the sentences reflected the severity of the offences and the need to deter such heinous acts. The court also examined whether the non-parole period for the second count should be adjusted to reflect the circumstances of the crime.

The High Court held that while the second murder was assessed in the worst category due to the extreme violence and premeditation, the sentences for both counts should be determinate. The court found that the intention to set the non-parole period at 75 percent of the total sentence for the second count was not implemented, and an adjustment was necessary. The court concluded that the non-parole period for the second count should be specified separately, taking into account the unique circumstances of the crime. The court's reasoning focused on the need to ensure that the sentences were just and proportionate to the gravity of the offences, while also considering the deterrent effect on potential offenders.

The final orders of the court involved the re-specification of the non-parole period for the second count of murder, ensuring that it reflected the extreme nature of the crime and the need to prevent future offences. The court's decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing in cumulative offences, where the circumstances of each offence and the intent behind them must be carefully considered. The court's ruling provided clarity on the application of sentencing principles in complex cases involving multiple offences committed for interrelated purposes.

Orders