R v Fordham; R v Piukala [2019] NSWDC 534

R v Fordham; R v Piukala [2019] NSWDC 534

The offending was above the middle range of objective seriousness because it was a planned joint criminal enterprise for financial gain in which the victim was lured into an ambush and repeatedly struck to the head with a brick, causing grievous injuries of a high order. Although Fordham did not inflict the blows, he orchestrated and facilitated the offence and contemplated a substantial risk of violence; Piukala personally inflicted the grievous bodily harm and had a serious violent record. Parity required comparable head sentences, while special circumstances, totality in Piukala's case, and rehabilitation needs justified the differing non-parole periods.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Proceedings / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty Entered in the Local Court and Adhered to in the District Court
Outcome
Both offenders were convicted. Each was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months. Fordham received a non-parole period of 5 years commencing 21 December 2017. Piukala received a non-parole period of 3 years commencing 20 July 2020. Both were referred to the Drug Court under s 18B Drug Court Act 1998.
Legal Topics
['assault With Intent to Rob While Armed' 'infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm' 'aggravated Robbery' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'plea of Guilty' 'parity' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Court Referral']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['assault With Intent to Rob While Armed' 'infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm' 'aggravated Robbery' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'plea of Guilty' 'parity' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Court Referral']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Proceedings / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty Entered in the Local Court and Adhered to in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed for offences contrary to s 98 Crimes Act 1900 involving assault with intent to rob while armed and infliction of grievous bodily harm.' 'Whether the offences were above the middle range of objective seriousness for the purposes of the standard non-parole period provisions.' "How the offenders' different roles, antecedents, pleas of guilty, drug use, personal circumstances, parity and totality should affect sentence." 'Whether special circumstances justified variation of the statutory ratio between non-parole period and balance of term.' 'Whether the offenders should be referred to the Drug Court for consideration of compulsory drug treatment orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offending was above the middle range of objective seriousness because it was a planned joint criminal enterprise for financial gain in which the victim was lured into an ambush and repeatedly struck to the head with a brick, causing grievous injuries of a high order. Although Fordham did not inflict the blows, he orchestrated and facilitated the offence and contemplated a substantial risk of violence; Piukala personally inflicted the grievous bodily harm and had a serious violent record. Parity required comparable head sentences, while special circumstances, totality in Piukala's case, and rehabilitation needs justified the differing non-parole periods.

Court Disposition

Both offenders were convicted. Each was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months. Fordham received a non-parole period of 5 years commencing 21 December 2017. Piukala received a non-parole period of 3 years commencing 20 July 2020. Both were referred to the Drug Court under s 18B Drug Court Act 1998.

Orders

  • ['Jay Mathew Fordham is convicted.' 'Jay Mathew Fordham is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years commencing on 21 December 2017 and expiring on 20 December 2022, and a further period of 1 year and 9 months expiring on 20 September 2024.' 'John Piukala is convicted.'...