The offender, Ms Pannu, is before the Court for sentencing in relation to an offence under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, being an offence of taking and detaining a person with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage in circumstances of special aggravation, namely being in company with other persons and where actual bodily harm was inflicted. The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period that applies.
In addition, the offender asks that in sentencing her I take into account two offences on a Form 1 document. The first offence is one of intentionally choking a person, being reckless as to rendering the person unconscious, insensible or incapable of resistance. The second offence is one of reckless wounding committed in company. The maximum penalty for each of those offences is 10 years' imprisonment, with again no standard non-parole periods.
The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a 25% discount on account of that plea of guilty.
An Agreed Statement of Facts has been placed before the Court. In summary the facts are as follows:
The victim of the offences was a 23 year old woman named Keiarna Crane. The offences occurred on 19 December 2018. In the weeks preceding that date the victim had been threatened with a firearm due to a disagreement with another person. As a result she had sought protection from an associate, a Mr Paleya, who went by the nickname of Smokey. As a result of this protection the victim allegedly incurred a $2,000 debt to Smokey. The victim however refused to pay that debt as she was of the view that any debt was covered by work she was already doing in the form of gaol drops.
About 7.15am on 19 December the victim was at home when Fale Faasavalu, Michael Ritchie and the current offender, Ms Pannu, arrived. Faasavalu indicated that they needed to go see Smokey, and offered to drive the victim to St Mary's Police Station where she was required to report for the purposes of bail.
R v Pannu [2020] NSWDC 299 | Case summary | Zoe
Although the victim said "all right" she did not really wish to go with them. Faasavalu said to the victim "I solemnly promise you that nothing's going to happen to you". Nonetheless, the victim called and texted her father, who made a call to triple-0. Faasavalu however became impatient and told the victim she had to leave and that she could do so quietly or she could go "kicking and screaming".
The victim went outside with Faasavalu, Ritchie, and the offender, Ms Pannu, and they all entered the offender's Holden Commodore with Mr Faasavalu driving, Ms Pannu in the front passenger seat and Mr Ritchie in the back seat with the victim.
The victim soon realised she was not being taken to the police station and attempted to escape the vehicle by opening the door and screaming. Faasavalu told the victim to shut up while Ritchie held her inside the vehicle and stabbed her in the upper thigh with a knife, causing a minor wound.
While in the car the victim's personal belongings, comprising five rings, a bracelet, a pair of earrings, her phone, and glasses were stolen by the three co offenders. It was the offender, Ms Pannu, who told the victim to hand over her phone. The victim told Pannu she was really scared and urinated in her pants. The offender, Ms Pannu, hit the victim in the mouth. Whilst still in the car Ritchie put the knife to the victim's throat and smashed her head against the car window. During this struggle the knife cut the complainant's left collarbone and she felt a sharp stinging sensation.
The car was driven to a house at 8 Piccolo Way, Shalvey, where the victim was taken by force out of the car and into the house accompanied by Faasavalu, Ritchie and Ms Pannu. Inside the house at that time there were a number of other persons including Elizabeth Dawson who was staying at the house. Faasavalu told the victim that if she made any noise he would "slice her throat". Faasavalu and Elizabeth Dawson took hold of the victim's hair and escorted her into the kitchen where Faasavalu put a number of implements on the kitchen bench including knives, screwdrivers, scissors, jet lighters, blow torches, pliers and spanners. The victim was then hit by Faasavalu and Elizabeth Dawson a number of times.
She was then hit again a number of times by Faasavalu, Ritchie, and the offender Ms Pannu. Ritchie punched her two to three times to the head and Faasavalu tied the victim's hands together with shoelaces. Elizabeth Dawson handed Faasavalu a dog lead which he wrapped around the victim's neck, choking her. Faasavalu then tied the dog lead to the victim's hands which were behind her back.
Faasavalu said to the offender, Ms Pannu, that he could "split the victim's forehead open with a metal pole in one hit for $50". Each of the offenders were laughing at this point and Faasavalu then struck the victim in the face with a metal curtain rod, causing a wound above her right eyebrow. This wounding is the subject of a Form 1 document before the Court.
The wound was bleeding and Elizabeth Dawson yelled at the victim that she had "better not be getting blood on the dishes". Dawson then hit the victim a few more times and the victim's blood splashed on some dishes in the kitchen. Faasavalu then said, "that's it, I've had enough of you lying", put a strap around the victim's neck and gagged her with a tea towel.Faasavalu and the offender, Ms Pannu, then held the victim while Faasavalu choked her, saying to the victim "just remember your boys". The victim lost consciousness and urinated and defecated in her pants. This act of choking is the subject of the reckless choking offence which is before the Court by means also of a Form 1 document.
When the victim regained consciousness there was a large blood clot on the ground and Elizabeth Dawson said "oh, it looks like you've had a miscarriage". Dawson then cleaned up the blood and Faasavalu cut the victim's clothes off with a knife and gave her a jumper and some shorts to wear. These clothes were later found by police in a car belonging to the offender, Ms Pannu. Faasavalu then burnt the victim to the stomach, chest and upper lip with a jet lighter.
At some point during the morning the co-offender, Michael Ritchie, left the house to attend Court, his involvement in the kidnapping ending at that point.
After several hours the owner or occupier of the house, Amanda Hitch, told everyone to leave as she was expecting a visit by officers of the Department of Family and Community Services. The victim was then taken to the back veranda of the house where she was given a cigarette and had the blood cleaned from her face.
At around 10 or 11am that morning the victim was taken by Faasavalu, the offender Ms Pannu, and another female, Georgina Rosieur, to a house at 6 Piccolo Way, Shalvey, which was next door. However, as the occupant did not want these people in her house, the victim was forced back into a car.
The victim was then driven by Faasavalu, Georgina Rosieur, and the offender, Ms Pannu, to an address at unit 2, 20-22 Fifth Avenue, Blacktown, where they were met by Laura Chatfield. Once inside that house the victim was forced to sit in a wheelchair and was questioned for a period of time by Faasavalu, Chatfield and the offender, Ms Pannu.
The Agreed Facts indicate that at this time each of the persons were smacking the victim around, which included hitting her in the mouth and punching her to the side of the head. Chatfield also threatened to inject the victim with a "hotshot" using a syringe containing a quantity of blood. However the offender, Ms Pannu, said no to this suggestion, and Georgina Rosieur intervened and prevented this from happening.
The Agreed Facts note that Ms Pannu added that, "I'm not saying no for her, I'm saying no because if you give her something she's still got to go home to her sons".
The victim was then taken to a bathroom by Chatfield where she was punched and slapped a number of times and told to have a shower, which she did. While showering the victim realised that she was bleeding from the vagina. After obtaining a sanitary pad, the victim dressed herself in her original clothes and placed the Mambo top and other clothes into a plastic bag. Once out of the bathroom the victim heard Faasavalu saying that they would take the victim back to the house in Piccolo Way and await word from Smokey, and that Faasavalu would "take her out" but Smokey first wanted his $2,000.
The victim was then told to jump from the unit's balcony into an enclosed bin area where she was met by Faasavalu and taken back to her Holden Commodore. Faasavalu, in company with Chatfield, Rosieur and the offender, Ms Pannu, then drove with the victim back to the house at 6 Piccolo Way, Shalvey.
After the victim was forced into a bedroom at the rear of the house, she requested to use the bathroom so as to change her sanitary pad. After doing so she handed the used pad to the owner of the house, Emily Woodley who placed it in the kitchen. Faasavalu then yelled out to the victim to return to the bedroom where she was forced into a chair and the door closed. Inside the room with Faasavalu was Laura Chatfield, Emily Woodley, and the offender Ms Pannu.
The Agreed Facts note that at this point Faasavalu was punching the victim and that he and Laura Chatfield used a knife and scissors to cut off a considerable amount of the victim's long hair. Faasavalu at this stage also used a blowtorch to burn the victim on her stomach and upper lip area. As the facts note, Ms Pannu was present when these events took place.
After this Faasavalu and the offender, Ms Pannu, left the house with the victim. The involvement of Laura Chatfield in the kidnapping ended at this time. The victim was then forced back into the Holden Commodore by Faasavalu and the offender and Ms Pannu and driven to an address in St Mary's where they parked outside a unit block which housed a drug house run by Smokey. Faasavalu entered the unit block while the victim remained in the car with Ms Pannu. Around this time Faasavalu used his phone to video record the victim's face and parts of her body to show to Smokey. Faasavalu said to the victim "turn your head this way, look at the pretty little rats tail I've made you".
After returning to the car Faasavalu drove the victim and Ms Pannu to a 7-Eleven store at Rooty Hill South, where they met with Wayne McAllister. After Faasavalu spoke with McAllister, the victim was told to get into McAllister's van, after which Faasavalu and Ms Pannu left the location.
The duration of the victim's detention was in total approximately 14 hours. After learning what had happened to the victim, McAllister drove the victim to her home, and then to her mother's house at St Mary's where they arrived at about 9.10pm. Police were contacted and arrived along with paramedics shortly afterwards when the victim was taken to Nepean Hospital.
At the hospital it was noted that the victim had a number of injuries including bruising around each eye, a two centimetre linear wound above the right eyebrow which required stitching, superficial burn marks on her abdomen, bruising to her thigh, an abrasion beneath her lip, an ulcer inside her lip, and injury to her finger. A summary of care from the hospital stated that:
"she presented following assault, with multiple injuries including a laceration above her right eye, a laceration to her left thigh, blunt trauma to her face, burns to her abdomen and neck pain. She reported losing consciousness while being strangled where she was double-incontinent".
The Agreed Facts indicate that five to six sutures were placed in the facial wound to which I have referred and that the victim declined any suturing of her leg wound.
The offender, Ms Pannu, and co-accused Mr Faasavalu, were arrested on 20 December 2018 and both denied any involvement in the offences claiming to have been asleep at Emily Woodley's house at 6 Piccolo Way, Shalvey.
Police executed search warrants at 6 and 8 Piccolo Way, Shalvey that day and located a number of relevant items at each house. At number 6 police located a sword in a kitchen cupboard and a steak knife, blow torch and gas canister in a bedroom.
Police found the victim's car parked outside 8 Piccolo Way and in the boot they found a bag containing a stained Mambo jumper and shorts along with a used sanitary pad, which after analysis was found to contain the victim's blood. DNA belonging to Faasavalu and the current offender, Ms Pannu, was also detected inside the vehicle.
Inside 8 Piccolo Way police found bloodstains in the kitchen including on the kitchen sink, a bloodstained tea towel and tissues, a bent metal curtain rod, butane lighters and blowtorch attachments, two dog leads, a taser and a ceremonial axe.
The next day, 21 December 2018, police executed a search warrant at unit 2/20-22 Fifth Avenue, Blacktown, where they found a wheelchair and traces of blood on the living room floor, bathroom floor and sink. Police also found a knife on the couch, another knife in the courtyard, and fingerprints matching Faasavalu and Chatfield.
On 19 January 2019 the victim identified Chatfield and the offender, Ms Pannu, in an identification procedure. On 26 February 2019, the offender, Ms Pannu, participated in a second interview with police in which she largely corroborated the version given by the victim but claimed that she was not in a position to help the victim because she was herself heavily pregnant at the time.
The Crown argued that the kidnapping offence should be regarded as above the midlevel of seriousness and towards the high level, while counsel for the offender submitted that the objective seriousness falls at least in the midrange for offences of this type. The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years imprisonment which is a clear indicator that it must be treated as an offence of significant objective seriousness. Furthermore, the Court of Criminal Appeal has said in a number of cases, including Newell v R [2004] NSWCCA 183, that in assessing the gravamen of an offence of unlawful detention the following matters, as well as others, may be of relevance.
Firstly, the period of the detention. As I have already noted from the Agreed Facts the detention in this case occurred over a significant period, totalling about 14 hours.
Secondly, the circumstances of the detention. In this case the circumstances involved a sustained campaign of terror and actual violence which was inflicted on the victim. It also involved gratuitous cruelty, although most of it not directly inflicted by this offender.
Thirdly, the person being detained. The victim in this case was a grown woman who was an acquaintance of the current offender.
Fourthly, the purpose of the detention. This purpose, as pleaded in the indictment, was the obtaining of a financial advantage, namely the recovery of a debt allegedly owed to the person, Smokey.
While the offender must be sentenced having regard to all of the facts involved in the joint criminal enterprise of the kidnapping and detention, it is also necessary in determining the objective seriousness of the offence that I have regard to her particular role. As McFarlane JA said, Garling and RS Hulme JJ agreeing, in Sheen v R [2014] NSWCCA 42 at para 13:
"In sentencing participants in a joint criminal enterprise it is undoubtedly necessary to determine the level of culpability for which each is to be sentenced. Whilst such participants are each liable for the acts committed in the carrying out of the enterprise, their individual roles, or other circumstances, may indicate that their sentences should differ".
I have taken into account the entirety of the factual circumstances of the victim's kidnaping and detention and her maltreatment during that detention. While the role performed by this offender during the kidnapping and detention was not as serious in my opinion, as that of Mr Faasavalu, it was still substantial, especially as her involvement spanned the entire 14 hour period of the detention. In the offender's favour however is that she intervened and said "no" when Laura Chatfield threatened to give the victim a "hot shot" with a syringe containing blood.
I note that the Crown accepted the mitigating factors referred to in submissions made on behalf the offender, which include the offender's claim that her failure to extricate herself from the offending was due to her fear of her co-accused and the fact that she was at that time 33 weeks pregnant.
In my view, taking all of these matters into account, and the contents of the Agreed Facts, the offence committed by this offender must be regarded as above the mid-level of objective seriousness. I form this conclusion based on all the facts but in particular the lengthy period of detention, the degrading and violent treatment inflicted on the victim, and the fear that she must undoubtedly have experienced. Although no Victim Impact Statement was provided to the Court, I have no doubt that the incident will in all likelihood have a lasting impact on the victim.
Ms Pannu's subjective circumstances have been placed before the Court in part by a report of psychiatrist, Dr Richard Furst. She is a 30 year old woman and was 29 at the time of the offences. She has three children aged 10 years, seven years and one year. Her children are currently in the care of her parents. She was born in Australia and is of Pacific Islander heritage.
She had previously been in a relationship with the co-offender Fale Faasavalu who she met in 2018. She attended high school in western Sydney and completed Year 12, after which she obtained steady work. She married at age 19 but this marriage broke up about seven years later, in early 2015, apparently due to her husband's infidelities.
In late 2015 the offender met and commenced a relationship with a man named Ben Angel, however this was problematic as Mr Angel was a methylamphetamine user and was violent. This ultimately lead to the offender being physically and sexually assaulted by Mr Angel in late February 2016, as a result of which Mr Angel was sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment.
Dr Furst in his report notes that after these assaults the offender's reported symptoms were highly suggestive of post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr Furst notes a history of psychotic symptoms in June to July 2017 which led to the offender's admission to Cumberland Hospital for 18 days in August 2017.
Medical records relating to that admission record acute psychotic symptoms including bizarre and paranoid behaviour with significant thought disorder, auditory hallucinations, pressure of speech, and features suggestive of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
The opinion of Dr Furst is that the primary diagnosis for Ms Pannu is one of schizoaffective disorder with a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder which is currently in remission in her current controlled environment.
The offender has received treatment with a variety of medications but these have been problematic to some degree in that they have led to significant weight gain. However Dr Furst remains of the view that upon release Ms Pannu will require ongoing treatment with antipsychotic/mood stabilising medication and regular psychiatric reviews which should be managed through her local mental health team.
The offender acknowledged her role in the offending, when speaking with Dr Furst, however she said she was told by one of the co-accused that the victim was merely going to be taken to a police station for the purposes of reporting. Instead the victim was taken to a drug house where the offences took place. She told Dr Furst that the co-offender, Faasavalu, was high on ice and had possession of her bag, telephone and car keys, which made it difficult for her to leave. She told Dr Furst also that she was scared but in particular concerned about the welfare of her baby, given that she was 33 weeks pregnant at the time. Specifically she told Dr Furst that she "wanted to help but didn't know what to do". The offender told Dr Furst that she felt very sorry for the victim who did not deserve to be treated in the way that she was and said that she was remorseful and felt sad, ashamed and embarrassed for her involvement in the offences.
In his report Dr Furst also refers to the offender's ongoing drug use in 2018 and her unstable relationship with the co-accused, Mr Faasavalu. He suggests that these were likely symptomatic of unresolved trauma related issues, maladaptive patterns of coping and a pattern of making poor choices in general as a result of previous negative life experiences and her untreated schizoaffective disorder. Dr Furst suggests that these factors mitigate to some degree against the seriousness of her involvement in the offending.
There was no challenge by the Crown to this conclusion or to the submission that this mitigated the offenders moral culpability to some degree and reduced somewhat the importance of general and specific deterrence. While I accept this submission to some extent, in my opinion the more significant factor contributing to the offender's involvement was her fear of her co-offender, especially as she was at that stage heavily pregnant.
The offender gave evidence on sentence and was cross-examined. She confirmed that she understood the terms of Dr Furst's report and said that she had told him the truth. She said she feels ashamed, disgusted and embarrassed for what she has done, and would like the opportunity to say sorry to the victim but does not have the courage to face her at the moment. The offender confirmed on oath her undertaking to give evidence for the Crown in the trial of Faasavalu, Ritchie and Chatfield, and stated that her motivation for doing so was that she wanted the truth to come out and to do the right thing by the victim.
It would be naïve for me to ignore the likelihood that the offender's motivation for assisting the prosecution is likely motivated also in part by self-interest, in that she realises that such assistance is likely to reduce her sentence, however I am nonetheless of the view that the offender has demonstrated very significant remorse for her offending.
I have come to this view on the basis of a number of matters. Firstly, the fact that on 26 February 2019 the offender gave an interview and statement in which she made admissions largely corroborating the victim. Secondly, her agreement to give evidence for the Crown. Thirdly, her statements of remorse to Dr Furst and in evidence before me, and fourthly, the substantial steps she has taken to better herself whilst in custody.
The offender has a very limited criminal history consisting of two offences of assault and an offence of contravening an AVO, all committed in July 2017, which were dealt with in the Local Court by means of s 10 bonds. Since being in custody she has taken substantial steps towards improving herself. These have included a large number of courses and programs including courses in visual arts, computer usage, domestic violence, mothering at a distance, a positive lifestyle program and a remand addictions program. She attends chapel services each week and is described as polite, respectful, friendly and cooperative to those around her, and she has recently started counselling under the victims counselling program. This is likely to be an important step for Ms Pannu given her psychological history and the serious sexual assault that she suffered in 2016. It is regrettable that this counselling has recently ceased due to measures taken to control the coronavirus in the custodial situation where Ms Pannu is held.
Dr Furst concluded that the offender has good prospects of being successfully rehabilitated. He appears to base this conclusion on the fact that the offender has accepted responsibility for her offending, has a solid record of employment and good prospects of future employment, has participated in programs whilst in custody and is motivated to stay well so that she can care for her children in the future.
I accept Dr Furst's conclusions in this regard and they concur with my own conclusions having considered all the material before me and the evidence given on oath by the offender.
A significant matter to be taken into account in this case is that the offender has provided information to the police in relation to the kidnapping incident and the part played by herself and others in it. There is no doubt that this information in the form of the offender's statement and interview in February 2019 would have been of some assistance to police in confirming the allegations made by the victim and in helping police to target their enquiries in relation to each of the alleged co-offenders.
More important however is the fact that the offender has entered into an undertaking to give evidence in the trial of Faasavalu, Michael Ritchie and Laura Chatfield. That evidence, if given in accordance with the undertaking, will be of considerable value to the prosecution's case by corroborating the version expected to be given by the victim. I assess the value of that assistance, if it is given, as being high. I note the Crown agreed with this assessment.
In sentencing the offender I also take into account her current custodial circumstances arising from the coronavirus pandemic. In this regard the offender indicated when she gave evidence on 3 April that she had received no physical visits from her children or family for the past month and that contact had been limited to telephone calls that were not always successful in remaining connected. It is likely that these restrictions will remain in place for some time to come and perhaps for much or all of the non-parole period that I will impose. This issue was not a matter that featured strongly in submissions made on behalf of the offender, however it is in my view a matter for which I should make some allowance given that the remainder of the offender's time in custody is likely to be more onerous due to these restrictions and the ongoing anxiety associated with the pandemic particularly in the custodial environment.
In determining the sentence I have regard to the importance of deterrence, both personal and general, which must be given considerable weight in punishing serious offences of this kind. However, and as I have already stated, I temper this factor to some degree on account of the offender's untreated psychiatric condition at the time of the offending.
In determining the sentence I have taken into account the purposes of sentencing and in particular those set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. I am satisfied that no penalty other than full time imprisonment is appropriate.
In sentencing I have also taken into account the two offences on the Form 1 document. I find special circumstances for varying the ordinary ratio between head sentence and non-parole period based on this being the offender's first time in custody, the additional restrictions already in place and likely to remain in place for some time arising from the coronavirus pandemic, and the need for her to be supervised in the community for a considerable time after her release on parole.
I apply a discount on sentence of 50%, comprising 25% for the early plea of guilty, 5% for past assistance and 20% for future assistance.
I impose a head sentence, having regard to those discounts, of three years, four months, and a non-parole period of two years. Each of those is to date from 20 December 2018 when the offender went into custody.
The head sentence will therefore expire on 19 March 2022, and the non-parole period on 19 December 2020.
I indicate in relation to future assistance that the sentence I would have imposed but for that undertaking and the 20% discount would have been a head sentence of four years, eight months, and a non-parole period of two years, nine months.
I recommend that a copy of the report of Dr Richard Furst dated 19 March 2020 be provided to the Department of Corrective Services and also to the parole authorities prior to Ms Pannu being considered for parole.
[2]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 15 June 2020