Appeal against sentence for teens who stabbed Wallabies star’s family fails

Jail time handed to two teenagers who broke into the home of rugby star Toutai Kefu and stabbed his family was appropriate, the Court of Appeal has found, dismissing an argument by the then-Attorney-General that their sentences were “manifestly inadequate”.

The teenagers, who were 15 at the time and cannot be named under the Youth Justice Act, were last year sentenced to seven and eight years behind bars over the violent invasion of the Kefu family home in 2021.

Toutai Kefu outside his Coorparoo home after returning from hospital.Credit: Nine News

About the time of the break-in the teenagers, who were armed with a sickle, had discussed: “If someone wakes up, you just stab them.”

The offending was described by Justice Peter Davis as horrific, with photos of the Coorparoo house showing blood smeared throughout.

Kefu, his wife Rachel and their son were seriously injured in the incident. It sparked community outrage over youth crime and became one of the major cases referenced in the push for tougher penalties.

Then-Labor Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath appealed the sentences imposed, arguing on several grounds, including that their punishment was manifestly inadequate.

Prosecutors also submitted that the sentencing judge had erred in not finding more of the offences particularly heinous, and failed to have regard to the maximum penalty of life in detention.

Detectives and forensic officers at the Kefu family’s Brisbane home after the home invasion.Credit: Cloe Read

At a hearing in the Court of Appeal in April, it was revealed one of the boys had since been released from detention, after serving the entirety of his sentence. His co-accused was expected to be released from detention on August 18 this year.

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Caroline Marco submitted in April that if the sentences were not corrected, it would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal noted it could only re-exercise the sentencing discretion if the Attorney-General had established error, and even if error was established, the court was still afforded discretion in regard to returning a person to custody.

In a decision handed down on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application, and said the Attorney-General had not established any error which would require the court to reconsider that discretion.

It said the Attorney-General had not established the sentences were manifestly inadequate.

“It is not sufficient for the Attorney-General to rely on a submission that the sentence is manifestly inadequate without demonstrating error,” the judgment read.

Regarding the offences being particularly heinous, the judgment said: “While surrounding context is important, and the offending should not be considered in isolation, there is no requirement, as [Justice Davis] observed, to assess heinousness ‘by reference to all the conduct globally’. It follows that no error has been established.”

The prosecution had also pushed for convictions to be recorded to reflect the “irreducible minimum” level of denunciation that the gravity of the offending required. However, the judgment said Davis had considered the relevant sections under the Youth Justices Act.

In sentencing, Davis also noted both teenagers had no prior convictions, and they had made rehabilitative efforts.

“[Davis’] decision is not one which lacked an evidence and intelligible justification. Quite apart from the pleas of guilty and the [teenagers] not having any criminal convictions, they had been held in detention for approximately three years,” the judgment read.

“This gave [Davis] considerable visibility into their prospects of rehabilitation and the steps to which each [teenager] had already taken in that regard. This visibility was supported by pre-sentence reports in relation to both [teenagers].”

The decision noted Davis had taken into account the personal circumstances of both defendants, including that one of the boys had displayed symptoms of Tourette syndrome, and the other had been exposed to domestic violence in the family household.

The appeal was dismissed.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.