Mataia v Police - [2016] NZHC 2737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-298

[2016] NZHC 2737

BETWEEN
ETISONE MATAIA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 November 2016

Appearances:

P Eastwood for Appellant

A McConachy for Respondent

Judgment:

14 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

Mataia v NZ Police [2016] NZHC 2737 [14 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] Etisone Mataia appeals against a sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed by Judge J Jelas on four charges of assault on a child (two of which were representative)1 and three representative charges of assault with a weapon.2 The circumstances of the offending involved repeated acts of brutality towards Mr Mataia's children in a disciplinary setting.

[2] Mr Mataia appeals his sentence on the basis that the sentencing Judge was wrong to sentence him to imprisonment before considering a report on home detention. He argues that the Judge was wrong to depart from an indication given at a sentence indication that “Home Detention would only be a viable option if it is at an address other than where the children are living”. He argues that his rehabilitative efforts were not properly taken into account in the provision of advice to the Court, and says that he now has a suitable home detention address.

[3] For the purposes of considering the appeal, I am prepared to accept that suitable arrangements could be made for Mr Mataia to serve a sentence of home detention. The only question, however, is whether Judge Jelas erred in determining that imprisonment was the only appropriate response to this offending. Mr Eastwood submits that the Judge should at least have permitted a further opportunity for the circumstances of home detention to be considered, and that a favourable report may have influenced the Judge to come to a different view. He invites me to remit the matter to the District Court or to sentence Mr Mataia on the basis that he be granted leave to apply for home detention.

Background

[4] The offending involved numerous assaults carried out by Mr Mataia against four of his children, aged between 3 and 11, largely at the family address in Auckland, between January 2014 and 26 March 2015. The details of each charge and the facts do not need to be given. It is sufficient to say that on various occasions Mr Mataia

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194(a).
2 Section 202C(1)(a); Police v Mataia [2016] NZDC 17341.

smacked one or more of his children across the face, the back and legs with an open palm, on occasions resulting in injuries which bled. He also held a child face down into blankets and smacked him with an open palm, causing a bleeding nose; he punched one of the children; he used a broom handle to smack the children on the hand or other parts of the body; he used a wooden spoon, including to hit a child across the face, causing bruising and swelling; and he stomped on a child's legs (albeit wearing jandals). On numerous occasions,…

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 Mataia v Police

Details

AGLC: Mataia v Police [2016] NZHC 2737
Case: [2016] NZHC 2737
Decision Date: 14 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Etison Mataia appeals against the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by Judge J Jelas for multiple charges of assault on a child and assault with a weapon. The court must determine whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing imprisonment without considering a report on home detention, as indicated in a previous sentence indication. The appeal hinges on whether the judge should have allowed further consideration of home detention, potentially influenced by a favourable report. The court must consider whether the judge was correct in deciding that imprisonment was the only appropriate response to the offending.

The legal issue before the court is whether the sentencing judge erred in determining that imprisonment was the appropriate sentence without considering home detention. The appellant argues that the judge should have permitted further opportunity for home detention to be considered. The court must determine if the judge's decision to impose imprisonment was an error and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed.

The court found that Judge Jelas was correct in deciding that imprisonment was the appropriate sentence. The court noted that the nature of the offending involved repeated acts of brutality towards children, including the use of weapons and causing severe injuries. The court emphasized the importance of deterring and denouncing violent offending against children and holding the offender accountable. The court concluded that the judge was entitled to determine that imprisonment was the appropriate response, and there was no basis to hold that the judge acted in error.

The appeal is dismissed, and the sentence of two years' imprisonment is upheld.

Orders