De Jong v R; Tuimaualuga v R; Zechel v R; Puru v R [2015] NSWCCA 32

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: De Jong v R; Tuimaualuga v R; Zechel v R; Puru v R [2015] NSWCCA 32 Hearing dates: 29 August 2014 Decision date: 13 March 2015 Before: Beazley P at [1]; Adams J at [2]; Fullerton J at [3] Decision: 1. The appeals of each of William John Zechel, Tahi Paul Puru, Billy Pusa Tuimaualuga and Daniel Warren De Jong be allowed.

2. The sentences imposed in the District Court in respect of the charge laid under s 112(3) of the Crimes Act be quashed and in respect of William John Zechel, Tahi Paul Puru and Billy Pusa Tuimaualuga, the following sentences be imposed:

(a) Zechel: Imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months to commence on 20 September 2012 and to expire on 19 March 2017, with a balance term of 3 years to expire on 19 March 2020.

(b) Puru: Imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months to commence on 8 July 2012 and to expire on 7 January 2017, with a balance term of 3 years to expire on 7 January 2020.

(c) Tuimaualuga: Imprisonment for a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months to commence on 21 November 2011 and to expire on 20 March 2017, with a balance term of 3 years and 7 months to expire on 20 October 2020.

3. Direct that the matter in respect of Daniel Warren De Jong be remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing in accordance with these reasons. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – specially aggravated break, enter and steal and commit serious indictable offence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentencing judge made erroneous finding of offending in worst category Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 105A(1), 112(3) Crimes Amendment (Reckless Infliction of Harm) Act 2012 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 54B(4) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3) Cases Cited: AB v R [2014] NSWCCA 339 Aslett v R [2012] NSWCCA 235 Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R [2014] HCA 2; 305 ALR 323 Baxter v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 237; 173 A Crim R 284 Blackwell v R [2011] NSWCCA 93; 81 NSWLR 119 Gray v R [2007] NSWCCA 366 Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37 Little v R [2010] NSWCCA 210 Marshall v R [2007] NSWCCA 24 Micklesson v R [2009] NSWCCA 61 Milane v R [2006] NSWCCA 281 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Baghdadi [2008] NSWCCA 239 R v Chaaban [2006] NSWCCA 107 R v Cheh [2009] NSWCCA 134 R v Dole; R v Nguyen [2010] NSWCCA 101 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220 R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130 Sheen v R [2011] NSWCCA 259; 215 A Crim R 208 Shrikantharajah v R [2012] NSWCCA 209 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Daniel Warren De Jong (1st Applicant) Billy Pusa Tuimaualuga (2nd Applicant) William John Zechel (3rd Applicant) Tahi Paul Puru (4th Applicant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Healey/E Nicholson (1st Applicant) T Gartelmann (2nd Applicant) A Cook (3rd Applicant) K Ginges (4th Applicant) P Ingram SC (Crown) Solicitors: O'Brien Winter Partners Pty Ltd (1st Applicant) Legal Aid NSW (2nd Applicant) Mandy Hull & Associates (3rd Applicant) John Hertz & Associates (4th Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) File Number(s): 2011/218064; 2011/218066; 2011/218069; 2011/219572; 2011/277328 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court Date of Decision: 29 January 2013 Before: Berman DCJ File Number(s): 2011/218064 2011/218066 2011/218069 2011/219572 2011/277328