Legal Research
Cases
Ikamanu v R

Ikamanu v R

Case [2013] NZCA 510 30 October 2013

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Sentencing

Minimum Term of Imprisonment

Specific Performance

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA708/2012
[2013] NZCA 510

BETWEEN	KEFU IKAMANU Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA751/2012
BETWEEN	SOLICITOR-GENERAL Appellant
AND	KEFU IKAMANU Respondent

Hearing:	16 September 2013
Court:	Miller, Cooper and Lang JJ
Counsel:	S J Lance for Appellant in CA708/2012 and Respondent in CA751/2012 S B Edwards and Z R Hamill for Respondent in CA708/2012 and for Solicitor-General in CA751/2012
Judgment:	30 October 2013 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
BMr Ikamanu’s appeal against sentence is dismissed.
CThe Solicitor-General's application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal is allowed to the extent that we order Mr Ikamanu to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of one half of the sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed in the High Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

Introduction
Background facts
The conviction appeal

The evidence
Submissions
Discussion

The sentence appeals

Starting point
Mitigating factors
Minimum term

Result

Introduction

Following his trial before Venning J and a jury, the appellant, Kefu Ikamanu, was acquitted of the murder of his daughter, Seini Ikamanu. He was, however, convicted of her manslaughter and also convicted of causing her grievous bodily harm with intent to do so.
On sentencing Venning J adopted a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter, taking it as the lead offence.[1] He applied an uplift of one year and six months to reflect the conviction for causing grievous bodily harm to ensure that the sentence imposed on the manslaughter reflected the gravity of the overall offending.
[1]R v Ikamanu [2012] NZHC 2755 at [27].
After making allowances for Mr Ikamanu’s early acknowledgement that he had caused the fatal injuries, remorse and an early offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, the Judge arrived at a final effective sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment. He imposed a sentence of one year and six months’ imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm count and directed that the sentences be served concurrently. The Judge declined to impose a minimum term of imprisonment.
Mr Ikamanu now appeals against his conviction, but only in relation to the grievous bodily harm count. If that appeal is successful, he seeks that the sentence be reduced by one year and six months, thereby removing the uplift imposed for the grievous bodily harm offence.
The Solicitor-General also seeks leave to appeal against the sentence, alleging that it was manifestly inadequate. Counsel contends that given all the circumstances of the offending, the starting point of eight years’ imprisonment which Venning J adopted for the manslaughter was too low and the discounts allowed for personal mitigating features were too generous. Ms Edwards submitted that a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was the minimum required to adequately reflect the gravity of the offending and Mr Ikamanu’s culpability.
The Solicitor-General further contends that there should have been a minimum period of imprisonment of four and a half years.

Background…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ikamanu v R

Details

AGLC: Ikamanu v The Queen [2013] NZCA 510
Case: [2013] NZCA 510
Decision Date: 30 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kefu Ikamanu was convicted of the manslaughter of his daughter, Seini Ikamanu, and causing her grievous bodily harm with intent. He appealed against his conviction on the grievous bodily harm count and his sentence. The Solicitor-General sought leave to appeal against the sentence. The key issues for the Court were whether the conviction was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court found that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Ikamanu stomped on Seini's pelvis while she lay on the floor, causing her fatal injuries. The Court also found that while the starting point of eight years for the manslaughter was low, the sentence of six years and nine months was not manifestly inadequate. However, the Court found that a minimum term of imprisonment was required, and ordered that Ikamanu serve half of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, Ikamanu's appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the Solicitor-General's application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted.

Orders