Anger over sentence appeal for sport star family attack

West Australian

03-06-2025

A neighbour who helped stop a horror attack on a former Wallabies star's family wants the justice system overhauled after an appeal over the teen offenders' "inadequate" sentence failed.
Ben Cannon came to the aid of Toutai Kefu and his family when they were attacked by two 15-year-old boys in August 2021, in a Brisbane home invasion that resembled a "war zone".
The former Australian and Queensland Reds rugby player suffered a "life threatening" 25mm liver wound, his wife Rachel remains partially disabled after being cut to the bone by a sickle and two of their children were injured.
Mr Cannon tackled one teen and pinned him until police arrived.
One boy was sentenced to eight years and the other seven after pleading guilty to charges including malicious act with intent.
They were only required to serve 50 per cent of their sentences and did not have convictions recorded.
Then attorney-general Yvette D'Ath launched an appeal in 2024 against the "manifestly inadequate" sentences.
But the Court of Appeal on Tuesday dismissed it after the state failed to prove the sentences were inadequate.
Mr Cannon said it was shocking, but not surprising.
"The news in a sad way, it's not unexpected," he told AAP.
"It seems like the system has more tolerance for injustice than it does for justice and it seems to always favour those who commit the crimes."
The attorney-general needed to persuade the appeal judges the sentences were disproportionate to the offending.
But counsel failed to put forward any comparable cases to provide a yardstick of the appropriate sentencing range, the appeal judges said.
Broadly comparable cases show under 10 years imprisonment was "not out of the range" of sentences that could have been imposed, the appeal judges ruled.
The state government had argued the period of detention ordered for the boys was also manifestly inadequate.
The sentencing judge had said the teens' lack of criminal history, rehabilitation efforts and personal circumstances led him to reduce the period of detention from 70 per cent to 50 per cent.
But the appeal judges found the attorney-general failed to establish the sentencing judge made an error in his decision-making.
In not recording a conviction, the sentencing judge used his discretion to consider the nature of the offence, the teen's age, previous convictions and whether it would impact the chance of rehabilitation or employment.
The attorney-general needed to establish that the judge was unreasonable and had argued that convictions should have been recorded to reflect the gravity of the offending.
Again, the appeal judges dismissed this, standing by the principle that children are entitled to the benefit of not having a conviction recorded to assist with their rehabilitation.
Mr Cannon said the decision had put a fire in his belly and would inspire him to do more with his advocacy group, Voice for Victims.
"This shows the system needs a total upheaval," he said.
"We need a system that understands that unless we catch these kids earlier and we steer them in a different direction ... then we will end up with more and more victims."
Asked whether there would have been different sentences if the Liberal National government's landmark "adult crime, adult time" laws introduced last year had been in effect, Mr Cannon was sceptical.
He said many legal experts - including judges - seemed to be lost in what the "adult crime, adult time" sentencing provisions actually mean.
"Justice shouldn't be grey. It should be black and white," he said.