Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43 Hearing dates: 13 November 2019 Decision date: 20 March 2020 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Leeming JA at [2]; Lonergan J at [143]. Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal, confined to grounds 1 and 9. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Quash the sentence imposed on 23 November 2018, and in lieu thereof impose an aggregate sentence of 3 years and 3 months imprisonment, commencing on 28 March 2018, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months. 4. The earliest date when the applicant can apply for parole is 27 May 2020. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - five offences involving violence committed in a short period following sustained drinking - one count of intimidation intending to cause fear or physical or mental harm, two counts of reckless wounding, one count of common assault, one count of destroy or damage property - two men wounded, two women fearful for their safety, one woman assaulted by drink poured on her - aggregate sentence of 4 years with non-parole period of 2 years 8 months after 25% reduction for guilty plea - supplementary submissions made after decision reserved and without leave - propriety of making such submissions - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to consider that the injuries to the men amounted to "woundings in technical sense" - whether error in failing to consider medical reports, in circumstances where sentencing judge was not directed to those reports - whether unreasonable weight given to photographs of injuries to men - nature of care involved in use of photographic evidence - whether error in assessment of objective seriousness - relevance of fact that the charges could have proceeded summarily - submissions and evidence adduced which departed from agreed facts - significance of agreed facts - whether submissions based on "provocation" misunderstood by sentencing judge - whether character references unreasonably devalued by sentencing judge - significance of psychologist's report purporting to diagnose psychiatric conditions - whether sentence manifestly excessive - significance and purpose of aggregate sentence - role of totality when offending was single course of conduct - appeal allowed and applicant resentenced Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 23, 35, 61, 195 Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 53A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166 Cases Cited: Amante v R [2020] NSWCCA 34 Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130 Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132 Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297 Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd [No 1] (1981) 147 CLR 246; [1981] HCA 20 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (2003) 214 CLR 318; [2003] HCA 28 Goode v Angland (2017) 96 NSWLR 503; [2017] NSWCA 311 Hanna v Environment Protection Authority [2019] NSWCCA 299 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528 Jung v R [2017] NSWCCA 24 Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218 Lees v R [2019] NSWCCA 65 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Masters v R [2019] NSWCCA 233 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nguyen v R [2008] NSWCCA 322 R (Cth) v Petroulias (No 36) [2008] NSWSC 626 R v AB [2017] NSWCCA 88 R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81 R v Shepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351 Turner v R [2016] NSWCCA 208 Vaughan v R [2020] NSWCCA 3 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Wollongong City Council v Papadopoulos [2019] NSWCA 178 WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165 Zreika v R (2012) [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tamaiti George Taitoko (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Russell (Applicant) D Patch (Respondent)