AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
5
Supreme Court 26 July 2019

R v Latu (No 3)

[2019] NSWSC 951

HomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE MURDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Citation: R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 July 2019
Judge(s): Lonergan J

Background

The offender was convicted by jury on 3 December 2018 of the murder of his partner, Rhonda Baker, aged 26, at their shared apartment in Liverpool on or about 7 August 2016. Ms Baker died from multiple blows to the head. The offender maintained his denial of responsibility throughout the sentencing proceedings, notwithstanding the jury's verdict.

The relationship had been marked by a prolonged pattern of physical violence and psychological control dating back to at least 2010. There was an escalation of that conduct in the months before Ms Baker's death. In April 2016, an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) was issued after a witness observed the offender assaulting Ms Baker. He continued to assault and threaten her after the order was made. Ten days before her death, she arrived at work with significant facial injuries.

The offender was also charged separately with contravening the ADVO, contrary to section 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).

  • What sentence was appropriate for the murder, having regard to the objective gravity of the offence and all relevant sentencing factors?
  • What weight should be given to aggravating factors, including the domestic violence context, the existence of an ADVO, the vulnerability of the victim, and the offender's criminal history and lack of remorse?
  • What mitigating factors, if any, applied to reduce the sentence?
  • What sentence was appropriate for the separate ADVO breach offence?

Decision

Lonergan J found the offending to be of very high objective seriousness. The killing was characterised by extreme violence and ferocity, and occurred in the context of a sustained campaign of physical and psychological abuse. Ms Baker's own emails and communications to friends documented her fear of the offender and his explicit threats, including a threat to "cave her head in," which the court considered particularly significant given how the murder was ultimately carried out.

The court identified multiple aggravating factors under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): the domestic violence context, the existence of the ADVO at the time of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim within the relationship, and the offender's prior pattern of violence toward intimate partners including a separate former partner. The offender's continued denial of responsibility meant no mitigating weight was available for remorse.

Her Honour assessed the objective gravity of the offence as very high and applied the standard non-parole period framework as a reference point, consistent with Muldrock v The Queen. The court also took into account victim impact material from Ms Baker's family, recognising the profound harm to the community as a whole as a relevant purpose of sentencing under the Sentencing Act.

Orders Made

  • For the murder of Rhonda Baker: imprisonment for 28 years, comprising a non-parole period of 21 years commencing 7 August 2016 and ending 6 August 2037, with a balance term of 7 years ending 6 August 2044. Eligible for parole on 6 August 2037.
  • For the breach of the ADVO: 2 years imprisonment commencing 7 August 2016 and ending 6 August 2018.
  • The offender was notified of the operation of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), under which the State may seek continued detention or supervision at the conclusion of the sentence if the offender is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court treated the domestic violence context, the existence of a current ADVO, and the sustained pattern of escalating abuse as significant aggravating factors in assessing the objective gravity of a murder committed by an intimate partner.
  • A continued denial of responsibility, maintained after a jury's guilty verdict, carries no mitigating weight in sentencing and forecloses any reduction for remorse.
  • Under section 21A(2)(eb) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the fact that an offence was committed in contravention of an ADVO is a statutory aggravating factor that the sentencing court must take into account.
  • Victim impact statements from family members were received and given weight as evidence of harm to the community, consistent with the purposes of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act and acknowledged in cases such as R v Archer.
  • Where an offender poses a potential ongoing risk at the conclusion of their sentence, the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) provides a mechanism for the State to seek continued detention or supervision by application to the Supreme Court.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481; [2006] NSWCCA 272
- R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
- R v Sean Lee King [2013] NSWSC 801
- Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
- Frigiani v R [2007] NSWCCA 81
- Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
- R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287
- Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98