AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
3
Supreme Court 18 September 2024

R v Tammajanta

[2024] NSWSC 1180

Assault & violenceHomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIME S ENTENCING MURDER PLEA OF GUILTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCE BRUTAL AND SUSTAINED ASSAULT

Citation: R v Tammajanta [2024] NSWSC 1180
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 September 2024
Judge: N Adams J

Background

The offender, a Thai national working as a chef in the Illawarra region, pleaded guilty to the murder of his intimate partner, a 37-year-old Thai woman, at their shared townhouse at Albion Park Rail on the evening of 18 December 2022. The offender had been drinking heavily before and during the events of that night.

The killing followed a sustained assault that moved through multiple rooms of the townhouse. The deceased attempted to escape by locking herself in the bathroom; the offender broke down the door to continue the attack. She sustained repeated blows to her face and upper body, compression injuries to her throat, and ultimately fatal head injuries inflicted with bare hands.

Evidence established a history of jealous, controlling, and physically abusive behaviour by the offender toward the deceased before the killing. Witnesses from their workplace described the deceased as fearful of the offender, and she had confided to family and colleagues about his abuse.

  • What was the appropriate total sentence and non-parole period for the murder, having regard to all objective and subjective factors?
  • Where did the offence fall on the spectrum of objective seriousness, given that the Crown accepted the offender intended to cause grievous bodily harm rather than death?
  • What weight should be given to the late guilty plea, entered approximately three weeks before the scheduled trial date?
  • What mitigating and aggravating factors were relevant, including the domestic violence context, the absence of prior criminal history, limited English ability, substance abuse, and the degree of remorse?
  • Was a finding of special circumstances warranted to adjust the standard ratio of non-parole period to head sentence?

Decision

Adams J assessed the objective seriousness of the offence as sitting in the mid-range. Although the Crown proceeded on the basis that the offender intended to cause grievous bodily harm (not to kill), the court found that the sustained, brutal nature of the assault across multiple rooms, the breaking down of a locked door to continue the attack, and the application of pressure to the throat were all significant aggravating features. The domestic violence context was treated as a statutory aggravating factor under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the court noted the particular importance courts have placed on denouncing lethal domestic violence, drawing on the High Court's observations in Munda v Western Australia.

On subjective matters, the offender had no prior criminal history, which weighed in his favour. However, the court found no genuine remorse: the offender's post-offence conduct and accounts were inconsistent, and his expressions of regret were not accepted as authentic. His prospects of rehabilitation were assessed as moderate. His substance abuse was acknowledged but did not substantially reduce his culpability. The court also noted that his limited English proficiency made custody more onerous, which was taken into account.

The guilty plea was entered on 20 August 2024, less than four weeks before the trial was due to commence. The court applied a 10 per cent discount under s 25D(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), reflecting the lateness of the plea and the consequent limited utilitarian value.

Special circumstances were found, warranting a departure from the standard ratio between non-parole period and head sentence under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The court took into account the offender's need for structured supervision and support upon release, including his language difficulties and the challenges of reintegrating into the community.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 23 years and 4 months, commencing 18 December 2022 and expiring 17 April 2046.
  • The non-parole period was set at 16 years and 4 months, commencing 18 December 2022 and expiring 17 April 2039.
  • The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 17 April 2039.
  • The offender was advised of the existence and application of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), pursuant to s 25C of that Act.

Key Takeaways

  • A murder committed in a domestic violence context, involving a sustained and brutal assault by bare hands with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, was assessed as falling in the mid-range of objective seriousness, notwithstanding that an intent to kill was not established.
  • The Supreme Court applied the principle from Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600 that the criminal law must respond to lethal domestic violence with appropriate denunciation and protection of vulnerable persons.
  • A guilty plea entered approximately three weeks before a scheduled jury trial attracted only a 10 per cent discount, reflecting the limited utilitarian value of such a late plea under s 25D(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
  • Absence of prior criminal record, while a mitigating factor, did not carry significant weight in the face of a finding of no genuine remorse and a history of controlling and violent behaviour toward the deceased.
  • Special circumstances were established, justifying an extended parole period to assist with the offender's reintegration, particularly given the additional hardships of custody attributable to his limited English language ability.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(3)(i), 21A(5AA), 25D(2), 30E(1) and (3), 44(2), 54B

Cases
- Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Kennedy v R [2022] NSWCCA 215
- Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
- R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
- R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
- R v Birch [2016] NSWSC 816
- R v Biles (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 525
- R v Ly [2018] NSWSC 197
- R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179; [2006] NSWCCA 302
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534
- Stojanovski v R [2013] NSWCCA 334
- Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; (2012) 226 A Crim R 354
- R v Johnson [2015] NSWSC 31
- R v Mahon [2015] NSWSC 25
- R v Kennedy [2013] NSWSC 1940
- R v Jermaine Bolt [2013] NSWSC 895