Moata'ane v Crown Law Office - [2019] NZHC 1872

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-409-77

[2019] NZHC 1872

BETWEEN
VINCENT MOATA’ANE

Appellant

AND

CROWN LAW OFFICE

Respondent

Hearing: 1 August 2019

Counsel:

P D Watts for Appellant

M McClenaghan for Crown

Judgment:

2 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] On 31 May 2019, the appellant, Mr Moata’ane was sentenced by Judge Couch in the Christchurch District Court to two years and three months’ imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to injure.1

[2] He appeals his sentence on the ground that the Judge made an error of law by not taking into account the positive outcome of a restorative justice conference between him and the victim. Accordingly, the sentence is said to be manifestly excessive.

1 New Zealand Police v Moataane [2019] NZDC 10500; Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

MOATA’ANE v CROWN LAW OFFICE [2019] NZHC 1872 [2 August 2019]

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal, submitting that the Judge did not err and that the overall sentence was within range and adequately reflected the culpability and criminality of the offending.

Factual background

[4] The appellant and the victim were previously in a relationship and have a one- year-old child together but had been separated for three months and were living at separate addresses. The victim also has a four-year-old son from a previous relationship.

[5] On the evening of 28 July 2018, the victim was at home. She had arranged for Mr Moata’ane to visit that night, but he did not arrive. She went to sleep in the early hours of the following morning.

[6] At approximately 5.00 am on 29 July 2018, Mr Moata’ane went to the victim’s address, entering the house through an unlocked door and going to her bedroom. Having looked at the victim’s cell phone and discovered that she had been in communication with another male, Mr Moata’ane became angry and woke her by yelling at her. He punched her repeatedly to the face and body.

[7] Mr Moata’ane then started to strangle the victim with his hands around her throat, only stopping briefly when she dug her fingernails into his arms. He then started to strangle her again, but with more pressure, leaning on his hands which were around her neck. She lost control of her bladder, wetting herself, and then lost consciousness.

[8] When the victim regained consciousness, she was on the floor of the bedroom. Her four-year-old son entered the room and she pleaded with Mr Moata’ane to let her take him back to bed. He ignored this request, however, punching and kicking the victim while she was curled on the floor.

[9] The victim tried to crawl up onto the bed and Mr Moata’ane started strangling her from behind. She started to gag and foam at the mouth and could feel “things

popping” in her face. Mr Moata’ane eventually stopped when the victim again lost consciousness.

[10] The victim was…

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 Moata'ane v Crown Law Office

Details

AGLC: Moata'ane v Crown Law Office [2019] NZHC 1872
Case: [2019] NZHC 1872
Decision Date: 2 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Moata’ane appeals against his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to injure, arguing that the sentencing judge erred by not taking into account the positive outcome of a restorative justice conference between him and the victim. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the sentence was within range and adequately reflected the culpability and criminality of the offending. The appeal hinges on whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the outcomes of the restorative justice conference and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court found that while the judge could have given more acknowledgment of the positive outcomes of the restorative justice conference, he was not required to detail each consideration in his decision. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, despite differing with the starting point and some of the discounts applied. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders