Manukailea v Police - [2014] NZHC 2647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000173 [2014] NZHC 2647

BETWEEN
MATA'AFA MANUKAILEA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 October 2014

Counsel:

M M Wilkinson-Smith for the Appellant
W R Potter for the Respondent

Judgment:

28 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

[re Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 28 October 2014 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counsel: M M Wilkinson-Smith for the Appellant

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

MANUKAILEA v POLICE [2014] NZHC 2647 [28 October 2014]

[1] The appellant, Mata’afa Manukailea, appeals a sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Bouchier in the Manukau District Court on 7 April 2014.1 Mr Manukailea had pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Background

[2] The appellant and his co-defendant, Sakisi Manukailea, are brothers and worked together at Formstress Concrete in Waiuku. On 25 May 2013, the brothers went on a fishing trip to Coromandel with several work colleagues. They had all known each other for a number of years, and there was no previous animosity within the group. That afternoon they went fishing and drank alcohol. In the evening, they continued to socialise and drink alcohol at a local pub.

[3] Tensions rose when the appellant observed a work colleague (the victim) bump into the appellant’s brother and spill beer over him. The appellant and the victim were separated by their colleagues and, upon return to their hostel, they all continued to drink. At this stage, the victim was heavily intoxicated and fell asleep on a couch. While he slept, the appellant attacked the victim, striking the left side of his face with a bottle of beer, making contact with the victim’s face and neck. Then the appellant punched the victim several times around the head. The appellant’s brother observed the encounter and joined in, also punching the victim about the head.

[4] Soon after, other work colleagues intervened and stopped the attack. The victim woke up in an ambulance and did not remember the attack. He suffered a blackened swollen eye, a laceration below the left eye, and a severed ear lobe, which was sliced open. The police summary of facts also mentioned two lacerations to the neck area, but this is not supported by the relevant medical reports. The respondent
accepts this.

1 R v Manukailea DC Manukau CRI-2013-057-001680, 7 April 2014.

[5] In explanation for the attack, the appellant and his brother stated that they had consumed alcohol throughout the day and could not remember assaulting the victim. Subsequently, the appellant and his brother offered $10,000 in emotional harm reparation to the victim.

District Court decision

[6] Judge Bouchier sentenced the appellant to three years, three months’ imprisonment. The Judge referred to R v Taueki2 and considered that the Crown was correct in its…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Manukailea v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2647
Decision Date: 28 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Manukailea v Police, Mata'afa Manukailea appealed against his conviction and sentence, which was imposed by Judge Bouchier in the Manukau District Court. The appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Manukailea and his brother attacked a work colleague who was heavily intoxicated and asleep, causing him significant injuries. Manukailea appealed the sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment, arguing that there was a mathematical error, the starting point should have been lower, and the Judge failed to provide an adequate discount for his good character and lack of convictions. The High Court held that the Judge had not made a mathematical error and that the starting point was within the acceptable range. However, the Judge had failed to provide a discount for the appellant's good character, and the sentence was manifestly excessive. Consequently, the sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment was quashed, and a sentence of two years, nine months’ imprisonment was substituted.

Orders