Australia, Aug. 2 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 2:

1. STERN JA: Between 9 and 14 March 2023, Lolo Liavaa, together with a number of other men, was an active participant in two joint criminal enterprises. The first involved an armed invasion, assaults and intimidation of the occupants and abduction of a 26 year old man, whom I will refer to as PV, from a home in Smithfield, Sydney (Smithfield house) in the early hours of 9 March 2023. The second involved the detention of PV at a house in Belmore, Sydney (Belmore house), for ransom, from around 6 am on 9 March 2023 until 5.15 pm on 14 March 2023 when PV was rescued by police. During this period of detention PV was kept in appalling circumstances and was subject to multiple serious assaults and threats of violence.

2. At the time PV was living at the Smithfield house with his then partner and her parents, brother and brother's girlfriend. None of Mr Liavaa or his co-accused were known to PV at the time. Indeed, the intended target of the offences was Tran Dinh, who is referred to in some detail below and who appears to have been believed to have been wealthy and/or have access to drugs, and not PV.

3. Mr Liavaa was arrested on 14 March 2023. He pleaded guilty to offences of specially aggravated break and enter and commit the serious indictable offence of intimidation in company and armed with a dangerous weapon contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (sequence one) and specially aggravated kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom in company and occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act (sequence two). Each of these offences carried a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and sequence one attracted a standard non-parole period of 7 years.

4. On 18 December 2024, Mr Liavaa was sentenced by Harris DCJ to an aggregate sentence, having regard to a reduction of 25% for his guilty plea, of 8 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 4 months. He will be eligible for release on parole on 13 July 2028. The indicative sentences, taking into account the 25% reduction, were 6 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months for sequence one and 7 years for sequence two.

5. Mr Liavaa's sentencing hearing occurred on the same days, and before the same judge, as that of Mr Tonga, one of his co-accused. Mr Tonga also pleaded guilty to offences under ss 86(3) and 112(3) of the Crimes Act, but Mr Tonga was also charged with a firearm offence arising from the events of 9 to 14 March 2023. Mr Tonga's sentence was identical to that of Mr Liavaa and his indicative sentences and non-parole periods for sequences one and two of his offending (the same offences as charged as sequence one and two for Mr Liavaa) were identical to those of Mr Liavaa. The indicative sentence for his firearm offence was 3 years with a non-parole period of 20 months. However, as would be expected, the circumstances of Mr Liavaa's offending were somewhat different to that of Mr Tonga's, and the two men also had different subjective circumstances.

6. The Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown) appeals against Mr Liavaa's sentence under s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) on the ground of manifest inadequacy.

7. Mr Liavaa also seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds that:

1) The sentencing judge erred in failing to find that his mental condition contributed to the commission of the offences in a material way thereby reducing the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences and his moral culpability (noting that this ground originally included a further contention, not pressed at the hearing of the appeal, as to the weight that the sentencing judge gave to Mr Liavaa's disadvantaged background) (ground one).

2) He has a justifiable sense of grievance as a result of the sentence imposed upon Mr Tonga, given the principles of parity (ground two).

8. In order to achieve finality, Mr Liavaa should be granted leave to appeal consistent with the observations of N Adams J in Xu v R [2023] NSWCCA 93 at [40] (Garling and Hamill JJ agreeing). However, for the reasons set out below, both appeals should be dismissed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197c34566bc51cf61b671a8d)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.