21 Sept 2023
The offender was convicted of murdering a particularly vulnerable 10-month-old in his sole care and breached a position of trust; life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust given the gravity and culpability, s104 applied but imposing the statutory 17 year minimum would itself be manifestly unjust in this offender's circumstances, therefore life imprisonment with a 15 year minimum non-parole period was imposed.
14 Dec 2022
Section 104 did not apply because the aggravating features (planning, unlawful entry, brutality, vulnerability) did not individually meet the high statutory threshold; both defendants were nevertheless guilty of murder with life sentences: Morris-Bamber received life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years given brutality, home invasion, premeditation and prior serious offending; Bamber received life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years because she incited, aided and materially assisted the murder (providing address, encouragement and deletion of evidenc…
29 Jul 2022
The statutory presumption that murder attracts life imprisonment was not displaced by the defendant's youth or personal circumstances; although offences were unpremeditated and influenced by intoxication and adolescent impulsivity, the offender had conscious appreciation that his conduct might kill and continued, therefore life imprisonment with the statutory 10 year minimum non-parole period was required.
29 Sept 2020
Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder (s102). Although s104 is engaged because the victim was a particularly vulnerable two-year-old, the Court found the defendant's significant mental illness and instability at the time of offending materially reduced his culpability and made imposing the statutory 17-year minimum manifestly unjust; the non-parole period was therefore reduced to 14 years.
8 Jul 2020
Using the Walker J sentence indication (global starting point 14–15 years) and applying R v AM the offending was placed at lower end of category 3 (13 years) but uplifted to reflect additional offending to a 15‑year starting point; mitigating discounts were applied globally (25% for early guilty plea as per indication, plus 5% for remorse/rehabilitation and ~3% for limited mental health mitigation; no credit for good character), producing an end sentence of 10 years' imprisonment; concurrent sentences were imposed for other counts and no extended minimum non‑parole period beyond the statutory…
16 Jun 2020
Section 104 was engaged because the attack combined sustained, forceful impacts with degrading taunts and was carried out in the presence of and despite opposition from the defendant's young children, elevating callousness and cruelty to the high level required; however imposing the 17 year statutory minimum would be manifestly unjust given the defendant's very early guilty plea and associated mitigation, so a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 15.5 years was imposed.
8 Jun 2020
The High Court determined the appropriate finite sentence was 16 years 6 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years, applying R v AM bands (placing the lead offending at the high end of the guideline bands), rejecting preventive detention while recognizing high reoffending risk and need for intensive treatment during a lengthy determinate sentence.
19 Dec 2019
Life imprisonment is appropriate and not manifestly unjust in this case; minimum non-parole period set at 11 years based on lack of premeditation (single shot), significant aggravation from post-offence conduct including concealment of the body and obstruction/false information during a major search, and mitigation for trial delay and restrictive bail measures which largely offset each other.
31 Oct 2019
The offender occupied an important middleman role in an organised supply chain involving substantial quantities (collective offending exceeding two kilograms), placing the conduct on the cusp of Zhang band four/five; a starting point of 13.5 years was appropriate, reduced modestly for personal mitigation (6 months) and by close to 15% for guilty pleas, resulting in an effective sentence of 11 years' imprisonment to be served concurrently, with no minimum non‑parole period imposed.
2 Aug 2019
The Crown could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tufui participated in a premeditated plan to kill; nevertheless both defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment because that is mandatory for murder and s104 applied given the context of serious drug dealing, brutality and an exceptional circumstance (an innocent bystander shot). Having assessed overall culpability and comparable authorities, the Court fixed minimum non-parole periods of 19 years for Mr Tufui and 17 years for Mr Tapaevalu and imposed concurrent terms for associated offences.