Maaunga v The King - [2025] NZHC 1694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000126

[2025] NZHC 1694

BETWEEN FAASALALAU SIUTILA FOLASA MAAUNGA
Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 23 June 2025

Counsel:

R Jones for Appellant

N C Vaughan for respondent

Judgment:

25 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 25 June 2025 at 2.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date: …………………………………

MAAUNGA v R [2025] NZHC 1694 [25 June 2025]

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against sentence.

[2] In the District Court the appellant, Mr Faasalalau Maaunga, pleaded guilty to charges of male assaults female (representative),1 causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm2 and common assault.3 Judge McNaughton sentenced Mr Maaunga to three years and two months’ imprisonment.4

[3] The sole ground of appeal is that the discount provided for the time Mr Maaunga spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail (33 per cent) was insufficient, which resulted in the end sentence being manifestly excessive.

[4] Mr Maaunga spent two-and-a-half years on EM bail. There were no real compliance issues. For most of the period he was subject to a 24-hour curfew.

[5]The Crown opposes the appeal.

The offending

Male assaults female (representative)

[6] In July 2022, Mr Maaunga was employed as a temporary worker at the Delmaine factory in Mount Wellington. He had been working there for approximately three months.

[7] On 6 July 2022, Mr Maaunga was working on the manufacturing line on the pasta floor. The first complainant, who was Mr Maaunga’s immediate manager, asked him to load some “rejects” through the machine and told him which bin to collect.

[8] Mr Maaunga picked up a bin full of pasta and threw it at the first complainant. He then attempted to throw another bin on a trolley but, finding it too heavy, pushed it towards the first complainant instead. He then lunged at her, grabbing her by the

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b): maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 188(1): maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 196: maximum penalty: one year’s imprisonment.
4      R v Maaunga [2025] NZDC 2211.

throat. The first complainant moved backwards, managing to push Mr Maaunga off her and when he tried to grab her again, she pushed him away.

[9] The first complainant screamed for help and another employee ran over, pushing Mr Maaunga away. However, Mr Maaunga continued trying to reach the first complainant and picked up other items from the floor to throw at her. The first complainant ordered Mr Maaunga to leave the factory floor. Three other employees arrived to assist, and Mr Maaunga walked towards the exit.

[10]The first complainant suffered a sore and swollen neck as a result of the assault.

Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

[11] The second complainant had observed the commotion from his office and followed Mr Maaunga outside.…

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 Maaunga v The King

Details

AGLC: Maaunga v The King [2025] NZHC 1694
Case: [2025] NZHC 1694
Decision Date: 25 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the sentence imposed on Mr Faasalalau Maaunga, who pleaded guilty to charges of male assaults female (representative), causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and common assault. Mr Maaunga was sentenced to three years and two months' imprisonment by Judge McNaughton in the District Court. The appeal was lodged on the basis that the 33 per cent discount provided for the time Mr Maaunga spent on electronically monitored bail was insufficient, resulting in a sentence that was manifestly excessive. Mr Maaunga spent two-and-a-half years on electronically monitored bail with no real compliance issues. For most of that time, he was subject to a 24-hour curfew.

The Court considered whether the discount of 33 per cent for the time spent on electronically monitored bail was a material error that resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Court noted that an allowance of up to 50 per cent is not uncommon and that courts have sometimes considered it appropriate to award a discount of more than 50 per cent of time spent on electronically monitored bail to reflect its restrictive conditions. The Court found that a discount of at least 50 per cent for the time spent on electronically monitored bail could have been justified in this case. However, the Court found that the end sentence of three years and two months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The Court noted that the starting point adopted was at the bottom of the available range, and the discount for the guilty plea was generous.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders