Legal Research
Cases
Tuhi v The King

Tuhi v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 115 1 August 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tuhi v R [2025] NSWCCA 115
Hearing dates: 6 June 2025
Date of orders: 01 August 2025
Decision date: 01 August 2025
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Ierace J at [48];
Coleman J at [51]
Decision:
(1) The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — allegation of error in assessment of offender’s subjective case — allegation of manifest excess — error in determination of indicative sentence — aggregate sentence not unreasonable or plainly unjust

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61, 86(1)(b), 195(1)(a)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13(1)

Cases Cited:
AA v R [2024] NSWCCA 132
Ahmad v R [2021] NSWCCA 30
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) 246 A Crim R 528
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118; (2011) 209 A Crim R 509
Kliendienstv R [2020] NSWCCA 98
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Sara [2020] NSWCCA 119

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Wi Michael Tuhi (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Isaacs (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/00286922
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

22 February 2024

Before:

English DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/00286922

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 22 February 2024, following a jury trial in the District Court the applicant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years for the following offences, all occurring in the same evening:

one count of detain with intent to obtain an advantage, namely psychological satisfaction, against the applicants then partner, contrary to s 86(1) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) (count 2).
three counts of common assault contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act, two of which were against his then partner (counts 3 and 7), and one of which was against his then housemate (count 8).

The applicant was also sentenced for two related offences that came before the Court on a s 166 certificate following a guilty plea. These sentences were to be served wholly concurrently with the aggregate sentence for the principal offences.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from the aggregate sentence imposed for the principal offences. His notice of appeal advanced a single ground of manifest excess but in his written submissions he raised a related complaint concerning the application of the totality principle and alleged a number of errors in the assessment of his subjective case. The alleged errors concerned the finding that he was not remorseful, the weight given to certain evidence, and the observation that there were inconsistencies in the documents tendered on sentence concerning his ability to work following…

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 Tuhi v The King

Details

AGLC: Tuhi v The King [2025] NSWCCA 115
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 115
Decision Date: 01 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tuhi v The King, the appellant, Tuhi, appealed against the sentence imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Tuhi was convicted of multiple charges including armed robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm and dangerous driving. The Crown sought a lengthy aggregate sentence, which was ultimately imposed by the sentencing judge. Tuhi contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had erred in the assessment of his subjective circumstances and in the determination of the indicative sentence.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of Tuhi's subjective case, and whether there was an error in the determination of the indicative sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was not proportionate to the crimes committed and that the trial judge had failed to appropriately consider mitigating factors. Additionally, Tuhi contended that the trial judge misapplied the principles for determining the indicative sentence, leading to an unjust outcome.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in Victoria, focusing on the need for proportionality and the consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately assessed the severity of the crimes and had given due consideration to the mitigating factors presented. The court also held that there was no manifest excess in the sentence imposed and that the trial judge had correctly determined the indicative sentence. The aggregate sentence was deemed to be neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences committed.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The court confirmed the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, finding it to be proportionate and just in all the circumstances.

Orders