R v Tongahai

HEARING DATE(S) : 26/10/09, 27/10/09, 28/10/09, 29/10/09, 02/11/09, 03/11/09, 04/11/09, 05/11/09, 06/11/09, 09/11/09, 10/11/09, 11/11/09, 16/11/09, 17/11/09, 18/11/09, 19/11/09, 23/11/09, 24/11/09 25/11/09, 26/11/09, 27/11/09, 30/11/09, 01/12/09, 02/12/09, 12/02/10, 05/03/10

DECISION : For the offence of assaulting Jordan Buchanan and occasioning actual bodily harm to her the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 15 months to commence on 29 April 2008 and to expire on 28 July 2009. For the murder of Solomon Penitani the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 18½ years imprisonment to commence on 29 October 2008 and to expire on 28 April 2027 with a total sentence of 24½ years imprisonment to expire on 28 April 2033. The total effective non-parole period is thus 19 years imprisonment and the total effective sentence is thus 25 years imprisonment. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 28 April 2027.

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - offender convicted of murder and assault occasioning actual bodily harm - applicability of standard non-parole period - offender on parole at time of commission of offences

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DPP v RHB (2008) 189 A Crim R 178 MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226 R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575 R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392 CASES CITED : R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 The Queen v MLP (2006) 164 A Crim R 93 Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES : Regina Moroni Tongahai

COUNSEL : J Bowers (Crown) R Sutherland SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS : S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) George Sten & Co (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: Moroni Tongahai (the offender) is to be sentenced following his conviction by a jury of two offences, both of which occurred during the course of an incident in Churchill's Sports Bar in Kingsford on 26 April 2008. He was convicted of the murder of Solomon Penitani (the deceased) and with assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Jordan Buchanan. The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment is applicable to it. A maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment applies in relation to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 2 Prior to the offender's trial I sentenced another man, Jason Papallo, who pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the murder of the deceased. An offence of affray was taken into account when Mr Papallo was sentenced. It is common ground that the sentence imposed upon Mr Papallo has no relevance to the present proceedings. 3 It is now my task to determine the facts in accordance with the jury's verdict. For the most part, there is little dispute about the facts. That is because the fatal incident was captured by CCTV cameras which were in operation at the time in the premises at Churchill's. In essence what the footage displayed was that at about 4.05 am on the morning in question the offender produced a gun and fired it three times at the deceased, who was unarmed, from close range. Two of the bullets entered the deceased's body with fatal consequences. The post-mortem examination revealed that the first bullet entered the deceased's left shoulder and went through the left lung, the aorta, and the right lung before terminating in the right side of his chest. The second bullet entered the outside of the deceased's left arm and exited the inner part of his left arm before re-entering the left side of his lower chest. It then travelled through the upper abdomen before terminating in the right side of his chest. 4 As I have said, the events which culminated in the shooting of the deceased were captured by CCTV cameras although of course, there was no accompanying sound. A number of patrons, as well as bar staff, gave evidence concerning their observations of what occurred in the premises during the relevant timeframe. However, that body of evidence did not add anything of any particular significance to what was displayed in the footage from the CCTV cameras. 5 The offender and the deceased had been acquainted with one another for some time prior to the fatal incident. The evidence concerning the nature of their relationship came, for the most part, from the offender. The offender gave evidence at the trial that he had first become aware of the deceased, who was some years older than him, when he was growing up. According to the offender, the deceased was the leader of a local group of boys in the Matraville area. The offender gave evidence that he admired the deceased and related how, in due course, he became friendly with him. He also said that he managed to ingratiate himself with the group of people with whom the deceased mixed. Social contact between them entailed, as I understand it, regular attendances at the Matraville Hotel and other establishments at which alcohol was consumed. 6 According to the offender, his relationship with the deceased deteriorated following an incident which occurred outside the Endeavour Hotel several years before the fatal incident. In short, the offender who was about 20 at the time, asserted that he was struck to the head by the deceased for no reason which was apparent to him. He maintained that he was forced to the ground where he was then kicked repeatedly. He said that he sustained various injuries as a result of the attack upon him. Although he sought medical attention in respect of those injuries, he said that he did not report the matter to police. 7 The offender gave evidence that from that point in time he entertained real fears that the deceased would harm him again. He said that accordingly he took steps to avoid him. Some support for the offender's evidence was provided by Paul Stewart who knew both him and the deceased. Mr Stewart gave evidence of an occasion on which he had been confronted by the deceased at a convenience store in Matraville. He said that the deceased had held a gun to his head and had demanded to be informed of the offender's whereabouts. In due course Mr Stewart advised the offender of that encounter. 8 Michelle Wilson, who was the offender's de facto partner during the period from January 2005 until just before the fatal incident, gave evidence of her observations of the extent to which the offender entertained fears about the deceased. She gave evidence of an occasion on which she and the offender had been travelling on a bus which had gone past Churchill's, an event that had prompted the offender to try to hide himself once he had seen the deceased. She also gave evidence of the offender's state of anxiety when she and he had seen the deceased whilst they were in the Eastgardens shopping complex and of the offender's reluctance to go into the bottleshop of the Matraville Hotel out of concern that he may be seen there by the deceased. She also confirmed evidence given by the offender that they had moved to her mother's place at Berowra in order to avoid coming into contact with the deceased. Ms Wilson, who is employed as a financial services auditor with KPMG, was an impressive witness and I have little hesitation in accepting her evidence. I am also disposed to accept the broad thrust of the offender's evidence in respect of this aspect of the matter and particularly where it was supported by other witnesses. 9 The offender also gave evidence that he was aware of the deceased's reputation for violence. Furthermore, evidence was adduced which clearly demonstrated that the deceased had a number of convictions for offences of that nature. As I understand it, those offences had frequently been committed in the context of disputes which had occurred at drinking establishments. Indeed at the time of his death the deceased was on bail for matters of such a character. 10 Coming then to the events of the evening in question, the evidence revealed that the deceased had been in Churchill's for sometime prior to the offender arriving at the premises. The evidence indicated that the deceased had a blood alcohol reading of 0.192 and that he had spent much of the previous day, which was Anzac Day, consuming alcohol. The deceased was seated at a table in the lounge area of the premises with a friend of his named Isaac Tautaiolefua. The offender arrived shortly before 4 am and approached the table where he began speaking with Mr Tautaiolefua. The offender gave evidence, which appears not to be in issue, that he did not know that the deceased would be in the premises at the time. Indeed, his evidence was that he had gone to the premises for the express purpose of confronting Mr Tautaiolefua whom, he asserted, owed him money. I should indicate that other evidence in the case provides support for that aspect of his evidence. The offender said that he had become aware that Mr Tautaiolefua was at the premises when he was telephoned by Jason Papallo who informed him that Mr Tautaiolefua, and indeed other people, were at Churchill's. Jason Papallo corroborated that part of the offender's version of events when he gave evidence. In the circumstances I am disposed to accept it. The evidence also reveals that the offender, together with Papallo and another friend named Phillip Pace, had been drinking together at various establishments earlier in the evening. 11 The offender gave evidence that some months prior to the fatal incident he had lent Mr Tautaiolefua the sum of $1000. He maintained that he had made several unsuccessful attempts to recover the loan and had formed the view that Mr Tautaiolefua was seeking to avoid him. When he gave evidence, Mr Tautaiolefua confirmed that he owed the money and that he was indeed trying to avoid the offender. The offender said that he went to Churchill's because he saw it as the perfect opportunity to confront Mr Tautaiolefua and get his money back. He said that prior to arriving at the premises he had obtained the gun, which was subsequently used to shoot the deceased, from a friend. He explained that his purpose in doing so was to show it to Mr Tautaiolefua in order to demonstrate to him that he was serious in seeking repayment of the money. 12 Once the offender arrived at the table at which the deceased and Mr Tautaiolefua were seated, he invited Mr Tautaiolefua outside onto the smoking terrace. He said that he did so in order that he could discuss with him the repayment of the debt. He said that once they got there, they proceeded to have a verbal altercation. The evidence reveals that the deceased followed the pair onto the smoking terrace and involved himself in the discussion although it clearly had nothing to do with him. Mr Tautaiolefua gave evidence that the deceased told the offender that he should pick on someone his own size. At some stage the offender revealed that he had a gun in his possession. It is clear from the CCTV footage that the deceased continued to involve himself in the discussion even after the gun had been produced by the offender. At some stage, security guards and other patrons appeared on the terrace. In due course those patrons returned to the main bar area. 13 The incident on the smoking terrace, whilst not involving any physical altercation, nonetheless created a degree of tension. Although it is not entirely clear what led the incident to turn into a physical encounter, it is quite apparent that within a short space of time a full-scale brawl had erupted. Various of the patrons got involved in jostling, pushing and gesturing at one another. Insults were traded and invitations to go outside the premises in order to continue the fight were extended. Punches were exchanged and chairs and tables were knocked over. The brawl spilt over from one part of the premises to another. The deceased and Pace were undoubtedly the most prominent protagonists in the fight. At one stage they removed their shirts and shaped up to one other. Papallo also got involved in that fight and during the course of the struggle between the three of them, the deceased was forced to the ground. 14 The offender left the premises after the initial exchange on the smoking terrace. He gave evidence that he did so because he was concerned that police may be called to the premises and that he did not want to be found in possession of a loaded gun. Nevertheless he returned to the premises shortly thereafter. He gave evidence that he decided to do so having observed, from a position outside the premises, that the fight was in progress. He said that he believed that he needed to go to the assistance of his friends Pace and Papallo who were, as he assessed the situation, under threat. Despite the assistance of the CCTV footage, it is not possible to form an entirely clear view as to precisely what happened, or the sequence in which events occurred, from that point in time. That is in part because the incident was captured by a number of different cameras placed at different positions within the premises which resulted in there being a number of different camera angles. Nor is there available a frame-by-frame depiction in neat chronological order of precisely what took place. In any event, it is not necessary for present purposes to provide a precise analysis of each and every aspect of the incident. It suffices to record that at certain times during the brawl, the offender and the deceased can be seen gesticulating at one another, albeit on occasions from a distance. Furthermore, it is not in issue that just prior to the fatal incident, the offender threw a beer bottle which struck the deceased in the face. It is also tolerably clear that shortly thereafter the offender advanced towards the deceased, and opened fire upon him causing him to collapse to the ground. The offender gave evidence that his eyes were closed when he fired the fatal shots and that he had not intended to kill the deceased. 15 The offender gave evidence that immediately prior to shooting the deceased, he had again gone to walk away from the scene when he had heard the deceased say in Tongan (which I understand to be his native tongue) that he wanted to kill him as well as saying something which the offender construed as being a threat about his girlfriend. The offender went on to say that he had heard a bang and that he had seen the deceased pointing at him. He said that he thought that the deceased may also have had a gun, but after having viewed the CCTV footage, he accepted that he was mistaken in that belief. It was upon the basis of this material, and the evidence concerning the fears which the offender otherwise entertained about the deceased, that the jury was directed to consider the issues of self-defence and/or defence of another or others or, in the alternative, excessive self-defence. Clearly enough the jury rejected the critical aspects of the offender's evidence concerning his state of mind at the time of the fatal incident. It follows that the jury was also satisfied to the requisite standard that the Crown had excluded both of those possible "defences" as well as the issue of provocation, although it is fair to say that that issue received almost no attention from the parties during the course of final submissions. That was presumably because the evidence which was adduced from the offender did not go so far as to suggest that he had actually lost his self control. 16 As the offender left the bar area and approached the gaming machine area, he was pursued by a young woman named Jordan Buchanan. Even though he was still holding the gun, she jumped on his back and held him around the neck. During the course of the struggle between them, the offender struck Ms Buchanan around the area of her head causing multiple small abrasions to her face and hands. He gave evidence that his intention was purely to "fend her off" although his actions had the effect of forcing her to the ground. Jason Papallo then joined in and pulled Ms Buchanan away from the offender. Ms Buchanan's friend, Claire Small, came to her aid. During the course of the struggle, the shoulder strap of the bag which the offender was carrying broke, causing it to fall to the ground. Once again the jury clearly accepted that the Crown had established to the requisite standard that the offender was not acting in self-defence when he struck Ms Buchanan. I am unable however to conclude that the offender struck her with the gun when he assaulted her. Jason Papallo subsequently returned to the gaming area in order to retrieve the offender's bag which he then returned to him. 17 The offender gave evidence that he had consumed 10 schooners of beer and 2 or 3 "shots" of bourbon, as well as a Xanax tablet, in the period leading up to the fatal incident. Nonetheless he described himself as being "tipsy" but otherwise "in charge of" himself. The offender told Ms Anna Robilliard, a clinical psychologist who prepared a report on his behalf, that on the evening of the offence, as well as having consumed 10 schooners of beer and six bourbons, he had also take an ounce of cocaine and two Xanax tablets. He told Ms Robilliard that he was in "an intoxicated condition" when he had gone to Churchill's Sports Bar and that he had been drinking heavily in the preceding fortnight following the break-up of his relationship with Ms Wilson. 18 The offender was arrested by police when he attended a police station on 29 April in the presence of his solicitor. He declined to be interviewed. It is common ground that it is appropriate that the sentences which are to be imposed should commence on that date. 19 The offender was born in 1981 on the Pacific Island of Niue and was 26 at the time that he committed these offences. As I have said the offender gave evidence during the course of the trial. I was provided with additional information about his background by Ms Robilliard in her report which was prepared for the purposes of sentencing. He was raised in Niue by his maternal grandparents until the age of seven at which time he was brought to Australia by his parents who settled in Matraville. He has four younger siblings. The offender's father was a heavy drinker, and during his formative years, the offender said that he was subjected to considerable violence by his father. He attended high school in the Mount Druitt area until the end of Year 11. Since leaving school the offender has apparently always been in full-time employment. In his youth he was a promising rugby league player but his career stalled when he became involved in the excessive consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs. In the period prior to committing these offences, the offender began using steroids on a regular basis. They apparently made him "very moody". 20 Ms Robilliard offered the following opinion about the offender: [He] has a well entrenched Substance Dependence Disorder and a history of conduct that evidences Antisocial Personality Disorder. This implies capacity for impulsive and violent behaviour which would be exacerbated when he was intoxicated. His impulsiveness may also be related to adult symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (ADHD) although this has never been formally diagnosed. His antisocial disposition has been shaped by long term exposure to violent abuse during formative years. This appears to have produced co-morbid symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Chronic) which can result in consequent aggressiveness in some individuals and heightened sensitivity to perceived threat. 21 A number of testimonials were tendered on the offender's behalf. They were from his mother, from his aunt, from Ms Wilson and her mother and from a minister of the Uniting Church. In general terms, they attest to the offender's personal qualities and to the fact that each of those persons will continue to provide support to the offender. It suffices to say that none of those persons can reconcile the enormity of the offender's criminality with the man that they know. I have paid due regard to that material. 22 The offender read a letter to the court in which he expressed his regret for the suffering which his actions had occasioned the deceased's family. He re-iterated that he had not intended to take the deceased's life and apologised to his family for his "foolish, senseless mistake and for the heartache and misery that [he had] caused" to them. Ms Robilliard also described the offender as being remorseful. 23 The offender has a criminal record which commenced in 2000 when he appeared before the Children's Court and was ordered to perform 150 hours of community service in respect of an offence of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. At the same time he was also placed on probation in respect of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In April 2002 he was fined $100 in the Local Court for using offensive language. In October the same year he was fined a total of $2400 in the Local Court in respect of two counts of common assault and a further offence of using offensive language. In 2003 he was fined $1200 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service in the Local Court in respect of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In 2004 he was placed on a bond in the Local Court in respect of an offence of assaulting an officer in the execution of duty. At the same time he was also dealt with by way of fines and disqualification in respect of two offences of driving with low range PCA, driving whilst unlicensed and driving in a manner dangerous. In 2007 he was sentenced in the Local Court to a term of 18 months imprisonment in respect of an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm whilst in the company of others. On appeal to the District Court the non-parole period which had been imposed in respect of that offence was reduced from 10 months to 8 months. The offender was released on 29 November 2007 and accordingly was at liberty on parole when he committed the present offences. Parole was revoked following his arrest for the present matters. That period expired on 2 October 2008. I have been provided with the facts surrounding the offence committed in 2007 together with a report prepared by a clinical psychologist which was tendered during the course of the sentence proceedings in respect of that offence. That offence involved an assault upon a person who had been walking down a city street in the early hours of the morning. The offender, whilst very intoxicated, apparently took exception to a remark made by the victim whereupon he proceeded to hit him in the head with his forearm occasioning to him facial injuries. The force of the blow caused the victim to fall to the ground whereupon he was kicked in the head by a co-offender. 24 I have received victim impact statements from the deceased's wife and from his brother. The feelings which they have so eloquently and poignantly expressed and the grief which they and their families have suffered is entirely understandable. It is a tragedy that the deceased's four young children have been deprived of their father's love and support. It is quite impossible to adequately summarise that sense of loss in a few sentences and to do so, or to attempt to do so, would detract from the contents of their statements. Clearly no sentence which any court could impose can ever begin to make good that loss. I extend to the family and friends of the deceased my deepest sympathy. The approach of a sentencing judge to statements of this kind is nevertheless now well settled: see R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76; R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392; MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226. 25 In approaching the task of sentencing the offender, I must have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the Act). I must also pay due regard to the various aggravating and mitigating factors identified in s 21A of the Act which have particular relevance to the case. 26 As I observed earlier, the offence of murder attracts the operation of s 54A of the Act. Section 54A(2) provides that "the standard non-parole period represents the non-parole period for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness". In approaching this aspect of the matter, I have had regard to the principles set out in R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 especially at pars 117-124; 131. See also R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575 per Simpson J at par 13; The Queen v MLP (2006) 164 A Crim R 93; DPP v RHB (2008) 189 A Crim R 178. 27 The Crown submitted that the offence fell into the "middle of the range of objective seriousness". My task in making an assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence is assisted by the fact that, as I have said, CCTV footage captured the most significant features of the events which culminated in the fatal incident. In essence they provide no support for the contention that either the offender or his friends were in any real danger from the deceased, or at least not during the period which immediately preceded the firing of the fatal shots. On that score it is also apparent, as the offender conceded in cross-examination, that he did not avail himself of a number of opportunities which arose for him to depart from the scene. Indeed, the evidence suggests that he ignored several requests by security staff to leave the premises. No doubt the jury was sceptical of the offender's claim that he entertained fears of the deceased at the relevant time, particularly given that he was carrying a loaded gun and that the deceased was unarmed. As I have already said, the offender was not aware that the deceased would be at the premises. Nevertheless, his criminality is marked out by the fact that he made the totally irresponsible decision to attend there with a loaded gun, when it must have been plainly obvious to him that there would be other members of the public in attendance. Although it is pertinent to observe that most murders are committed by a person using a weapon, it remains a matter of aggravation that the offender resorted to using the gun. Moreover, it is evident that the offender, in firing the gun in the circumstances in which he did, had scant regard for the safety of other patrons. 28 It was submitted by Mr Sutherland SC, who appeared on behalf of the offender, that I should find that the offender intended to do no more than to inflict grievous bodily harm upon the deceased. I am unable to accept that submission in light of the medical evidence, to which I referred earlier, and what the CCTV footage reveals about the offender's actions in shooting the deceased. Although I am of the view that it does not make a great deal of difference in the circumstances of the present case, I am nevertheless satisfied to the requisite standard that he intended to kill the deceased when he fired three shots at him from close range. However, the evidence does not permit me to conclude that that intention was formed at any time other than immediately before the shots were fired. Putting the matter another way the offender's actions were, as the Crown conceded, spontaneous and impulsive rather than premeditated. It may also be accepted that the CCTV footage rather suggests that the offender turned away from the deceased immediately prior to the fatal incident. Something however prompted him to turn back. I am left unable to determine what may have caused him to do so. Whatever it was, it is conceivable that the offender simply reacted in a state of panic to the highly charged situation in which he found himself. I am also prepared to accept that the offender's fears, which derived from his past encounters with the deceased, played their part in inducing him to react as he did. In those circumstances I am inclined to accept the submission, as it was ultimately refined by Mr Sutherland, that I should find that the offence falls below, but only slightly below, the middle of the range of objective seriousness. 29 In assessing the appropriate sentence to be imposed I must also have regard, as an aggravating feature, to the fact that the offender was on parole at the time that he committed these offences. Moreover, the extent and nature of his criminal antecedents demonstrate, to my mind, a continuing "attitude of disobedience to the law" such as to require at least some additional weight being paid to considerations of personal deterrence, retribution and protection of society: see Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465. In approaching that aspect of the matter I have sought to apply the principles enunciated in R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566. That said, I acknowledge that there is nothing in the offender's criminal history which remotely approaches the seriousness of the principal offence in respect of which he stands to be sentenced. 30 There is not a great deal of material of a subjective nature that can be advanced on the offender's behalf which would serve to mitigate the otherwise appropriate sentences. Although I am prepared to accept that the offender has expressed some remorse for his actions in shooting the deceased, I am not persuaded that he fully accepts the legal consequences of his actions, or for that matter that he accepts his guilt of these offences. Although it was faintly suggested on the offender's behalf that his actions were, at least to some extent provoked, I am not minded to ameliorate the sentence on this basis. As I have previously indicated the offender denied, whilst giving evidence, that he had lost self-control. Nor do his actions suggest that he did. 31 I referred earlier to the evidence concerning the offender's consumption of alcohol on the night in question. Although the Crown pointed out that there was some minor inconsistencies in the accounts given by the offender on this topic, I do not regard it as a matter of any great moment. That is because even if the offender had been significantly intoxicated at the time, that would not be a consideration in view of his history, that could operate to mitigate the otherwise appropriate sentences. Nor in fairness, did Mr Sutherland suggest that it could. 32 It cannot be said, particularly given his prior criminal record, that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation are other than fairly forlorn. It seems readily apparent that the offender has, thus far at least, been unable to curb his apparent tendency to resort to violence after having consumed excessive quantities of alcohol. I would not however be prepared to regard his prospects as completely doomed particularly as he is still a relatively young man with a creditable work record who retains the support of his family and friends. 33 Although the offence committed upon Jordan Buchanan occurred during the course of the same criminal episode, it nonetheless constitutes a separate offence involving a separate victim and thus requires, as Mr Sutherland recognised, the imposition of a sentence which has a degree of accumulation built into it. It is to be recalled that it occurred as the offender was fleeing from the premises as he sought to avoid being apprehended for having killed the deceased. That said, I accept that it was a highly unusual form of the offence and that the offender spontaneously reacted, albeit with a display of excessive force, to the intervention of Ms Buchanan. 34 The need to accumulate the sentences provides a basis for finding "special circumstances". In the result there will be a minor departure from the normal statutory ratio which the overall non-parole period bears to the overall head sentence. The effect of the overall sentence which I shall impose will, in any event, enable the offender to have an extended period of supervision in the community whilst on parole. In setting the overall non-parole period, I have borne steadily in mind the need to fix the minimum period which the offender must spend in custody: R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704.

Sentence 35 For the offence of assaulting Jordan Buchanan and occasioning actual bodily harm to her the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 15 months to commence on 29 April 2008 and to expire on 28 July 2009. 36 For the murder of Solomon Penitani the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 18½ years imprisonment to commence on 29 October 2008 and to expire on 28 April 2027 with a total sentence of 24½ years imprisonment to expire on 28 April 2033. The total effective non-parole period is thus 19 years imprisonment and the total effective sentence is thus 25 years imprisonment. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 28 April 2027.

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.