Legal Research
Cases
Tukuafu v The King

Tukuafu v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 84 7 June 2024

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84
Hearing dates: 17 April 2024
Date of orders: 7 June 2024
Decision date: 07 June 2024
Before: Ward P at [1]
Chen J at [2]
Huggett J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – whether open to the sentencing judge to find that the male victim suffered “life threatening injuries” – whether permissible to take into account a further offence on a Form 1 document in assessing and determining the objective seriousness of a principal offence – s 15 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) – admissibility of juvenile criminal record

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 413; [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Benn v R [2023] NSWCCA 24
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Blackett v R [2021] NSWCCA 210
Camilleri v R [2023] NSWCCA 106
Courtney v R [2022] NSWCCA 223
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81
DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114
Flick v R [2023] NSWCCA 197
Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348
Hughes v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 48
Ibbotson (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 92
Kapila v R [2024] NSWCCA 48
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
MF v R [2024] NSWCCA 42
Newman (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 157
R v A [2004] NSWCCA 292
R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Price [2005] NSWCCA 285
Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150
RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183
Siddiqi v Regina (Commonwealth) [2015] NSWCCA 169
Singh v R [2021] NSWCCA 96
Stephens v R [2010] NSWCCA 93
Tapueluelu v R [2006] NSWCCA 113
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 645; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Siaosi Tukuafu (Applicant)
The King (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Ramrakha (Applicant)
Mr J Styles (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/00224165; 2021/00251527
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2022] NSWDC 671

Date of Decision:

22 November 2022

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/00251527
2021/00224165

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part…

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 Tukuafu v The King

Details

AGLC: Tukuafu v The King [2024] NSWCCA 84
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 84
Decision Date: 07 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tukuafu v The King, the appellant was convicted of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The appellant appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in finding that the male victim suffered "life threatening injuries" and in taking into account a further offence on a Form 1 document in assessing the objective seriousness of the principal offence. The case was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, who found that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court was required to decide whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the male victim suffered "life threatening injuries". The court held that the appellant's submissions were based on the assertion that the victim did not suffer life threatening injuries, and that there was no evidence to support this finding. The court found that the victim had suffered significant injuries, and that the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the injuries were life threatening. The court was also required to decide whether it was permissible to take into account a further offence on a Form 1 document in assessing the objective seriousness of the principal offence. The court found that it was permissible to take into account the further offence in assessing the objective seriousness of the principal offence, as it was relevant to the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence.

The court found that the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the male victim suffered "life threatening injuries" and that it was permissible to take into account a further offence on a Form 1 document in assessing the objective seriousness of the principal offence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court noted that the appellant's criminal history was relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the principal offence, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken this into account. The court also noted that the appellant's submissions regarding the admissibility of the juvenile criminal record were not successful, as the court found that the record was admissible under s 15 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence, and the appellant's sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the male victim suffered "life threatening injuries" and that it was permissible to take into account a further offence on a Form 1 document in assessing the objective seriousness of the principal offence. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court noted that the appellant's criminal history was relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the principal offence, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken this into account. The court also found that the juvenile criminal record was admissible under s 15 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).

Orders