Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Papalii

The Queen v Papalii

Case [2015] ACTSC 156 22 June 2015

Resisting a public official

Remorse

Totality

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	The Queen v Papalii
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 156
Hearing Date(s):	15 December 2014, 17 June 2015
DecisionDate:	22 June 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of the robbery of $300 from PA Job Pty Ltd on 13 December 2013. 2. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three years imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2015. 3. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of the robbery of $90 from PA Job Pty Ltd on 13 December 2013. 4. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to two years and ten months imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2016. 5. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of attempting to rob United Star Supermarkets Ltd on 13 December 2013. 6. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three years imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2017. 7. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of assaulting Constable Macken on 13 December 2013. 8. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 April 2020, that is to be cumulative as to one month on the third sentence. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to four months imprisonment. 9. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of the assault of Paul Duncan on 13 December 2013. 10. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to six months imprisonment to commence on 16 March 2020. 11. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of resisting Constable Macken in the exercise of his function as a police officer on 13 December 2013. 12. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 April 2020. 13. The sentence of five years and three months imprisonment be suspended on 22 June 2015 for a period of five years and three months. 14. John Jerome Papalii be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) to be of good behaviour for five years and three months from today with the following conditions: (a) a probation condition that he accept the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of two years from today or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of that person especially as to counselling or treatment for alcohol abuse and anger management; and (b) a condition that he pay a penalty of $5,040 to the Territory within two years at a rate of not less than $210 per month. 15. John Jerome Papalii pay compensation in the sum of $390 to the Registrar of the Supreme Court within 28 days for payment out to PA Job Pty Ltd.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Sentencing – Robbery – Attempted Robbery – Assault – Resisting a public official in the exercise of his functions – Offences…

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 The Queen v Papalii

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Papalii [2015] ACTSC 156
Case: [2015] ACTSC 156
Decision Date: 22 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, John Jerome Papalii, was convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on various charges, including robbery, attempted robbery, assault, and resisting arrest. The charges stemmed from incidents that occurred on 13 December 2013, involving multiple victims and law enforcement.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for Papalii’s convictions, considering the totality of the offending, the incompetence of the offences, the delay in preferring remaining charges, and the mitigating factors such as Papalii’s participation in counselling and his expressions of remorse. The court also had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the prospect of rehabilitation.

In delivering the sentences, the court acknowledged the significance of Papalii’s remorse and his efforts towards rehabilitation through counselling. However, the court emphasised the seriousness of the crimes, particularly the use of violence and the impact on the victims. The court imposed concurrent and cumulative sentences, taking into account the totality principle, and also ordered Papalii to comply with good behaviour obligations and pay compensation.

The final orders of the court included convictions and specific sentences for each charge, as well as conditions for a suspended sentence and payment of compensation to the victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of the robbery of $300 from PA Job Pty Ltd on 13 December 2013.

2. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three years imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2015.

3. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of the robbery of $90 from PA Job Pty Ltd on 13 December 2013.

4. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to two years and ten months imprisonment to commence on 16 August 2016.

5. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of attempting to rob United Star Supermarkets Ltd on 13 December 2013.

6. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three years imprisonment to commence on 16 June 2017.

7. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of assaulting Constable Macken on 13 December 2013.

8. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 April 2020, that is to be cumulative as to one month on the third sentence. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to four months imprisonment.

9. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of the assault of Paul Duncan on 13 December 2013.

10. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to six months imprisonment to commence on 16 March 2020.

11. John Jerome Papalii be convicted of resisting Constable Macken in the exercise of his function as a police officer on 13 December 2013.

12. John Jerome Papalii be sentenced for that offence to three months imprisonment to commence on 16 April 2020.

13. The sentence of five years and three months imprisonment be suspended on 22 June 2015 for a period of five years and three months.

14. John Jerome Papalii be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) to be of good behaviour for five years and three months from today with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that he accept the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of two years from today or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of that person especially as to counselling or treatment for alcohol abuse and anger management; and

(b) a condition that he pay a penalty of $5,040 to the Territory within two years at a rate of not less than $210 per month.

15. John Jerome Papalii pay compensation in the sum of $390 to the Registrar of the Supreme Court within 28 days for payment out to PA Job Pty Ltd.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

The Queen v Papalii [2015] ACTSC 156

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

McElholum v Hughes
[2015] ACTSC 78 Para 1

…I had no particular information on the effects of the assaults. While more than mere contact ( McElholum v Hughes [2015] ACTSC 78 at [297]), it did not seem to me that the assault on Constable Macken was a serious assault, though it is always serious to assault a police officer.…
R v Barker
[2014] ACTSC 374 Para 1

…Under s 68D of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), however, I am able in certain circumstances to deal with them. I have referred in R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 374 at [76]-[89] to this provision and how I am to approach it.…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 1

…ch is a fine of 1,400 penalty units (at the time, a fine of $196,000) and fourteen years imprisonment. As the High Court said in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31], “The maximum penalty for a statutory offence serves as an indication of the relative seriousness of the offence.” By this yardstick, th…
Clarkson v The Queen
[2011] VSCA 157 Para 1

…Victim Impact Statements. The court, of course, will know generally the effect of crimes on victims, some of which can be presumed, as pointed out in Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361 at 371; [33]; DBW v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 236 at [39]. It has been said that judges know of the significant impact that offences of armed…
Scott v Wynants
[2009] ACTSC 62 Para 1

…Guideline Judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales do not, as Higgins CJ pointed out in Scott v Wynants (2009) 4 ACTLR 13 at 18; [35], bind this Court, though the reasoning may be application. In any event, the guideline in R v Henry is for a different offence and so cannot be made directly applicable…
DBW v R
[2007] NSWCCA 236 Para 1

…the effect of crimes on victims, some of which can be presumed, as pointed out in Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361 at 371; [33]; DBW v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 236 at [39]. It has been said that judges know of the significant impact that offences of armed robbery have on its victims: R v Henry at 368; [97].…
R v Verdins
[2007] VSCA 102 Para 1

…ear link between the commission of the offences and Mr Papalii’s mental condition that appears to require me to apply the principles in R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at 276; [32], namely, the first and third ways mental functioning there identified is relevant to sentencing, that is:…
R v Harris
[2007] NSWCCA 130 Para 1

…inue: Director of Public Prosecutions v Grabovac [1998] 1 VR 664. On the other hand, I must be careful to note that, as pointed out in R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 at [46], an offender’s criminality is greater by reason of committing more offences rather than fewer and that the impression should not be left that an…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 1

…hat the courts have found relevant in determining the seriousness of the more serious offence. For example, the relevant factors set out in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at 380; [162] and 381; [170] are, for the most part, features that would be applicable to the offence of robbery as well as the offence of aggravated…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 1

…confined span of time, may be sufficient to permit the presumption of concurrency to continue: Director of Public Prosecutions v Grabovac [1998] 1 VR 664. On the other hand, I must be careful to note that, as pointed out in R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 at [46], an offender’s criminality is greater by reaso…
Griffiths v The Queen
[1977] HCA 44 Para 1

…ed Sentence Order under s 27 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). It may be that I made, in effect, a Griffiths Bond (see Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 at 304-5), but I gave no indication to Mr Papalii of what was required of him, save as to conditions of bail, nor as to what sentence may be imposed.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
27, 33, 7, 83(1)(o) 5 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
26 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
90B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
680 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)