Police v Vuetaki - [2016] NZHC 2515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2016-476-000009 [2016] NZHC 2515

BETWEEN
NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Appellant

AND

JONE NAYALOGA VUETAKI Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2016

Appearances:

M A Beattie for Appellant
J B Lovely for Respondent

Judgment:

20 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The New Zealand Police, the appellant here, appeal against a sentencing decision delivered in the District Court at Timaru by Judge Maze on 2 August 2016. In this decision addressing one count of male assaults female and one count of common assault, the respondent, Mr Vuetaki, was sentenced to 130 hours’ community work. The appellant appeals this decision on the basis outlined in the Notice of Appeal that “there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction and a different sentence should be imposed”. Essentially, the appellant is suggesting here that either the sentence is manifestly inadequate, or that some significant error of principle was made by the sentencing Judge.

Background

[2] Turning to the facts which culminated in the respondent’s offending here, at about 8pm on 2 November 2015, the respondent and his wife, the victim, were at
their home. An argument developed over alleged infidelity by the respondent. The

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v VUETAKI [2016] NZHC 2515 [20 October 2016]

victim was holding their nine month old daughter at the time. The respondent reacted by forcefully pushing a wooden highchair over which struck the victim’s feet.

[3] The respondent then advanced on the victim and began yelling at her while she was still holding their child. The respondent raised his right hand and slapped the victim hard on her left cheek and ear, which caused an ongoing hearing problem for the victim for some time.

[4] He then forcefully grabbed their daughter from the victim, which caused her to fall down to the ground. The victim got up and walked away from the respondent. The responded reacted by clipping her on the back of her head with his open hand.

[5] The victim continued into the bathroom where they continued to argue, with the respondent calling her derogatory names. The victim reacted by slapping him once on his face and he responded by also slapping her left cheek. They continued to argue for a period of time and when he left the address with their child, she called the Police. However, the respondent came back soon after and the victim terminated the call.

[6] They again continued arguing for some time until the victim walked out of the house and the respondent followed. The respondent grabbed her by her left wrist and pushed her into some bushes, pinning her there by holding his arm around her. The respondent held her like that for a short period of time and only released her after she stated that she accepted his apology.

[7] When they got back home together, their child was crying and the defendant picked her up to comfort her. Again, as the victim walked past him, he clipped…

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 Police v Vuetaki

Details

AGLC: Police v Vuetaki [2016] NZHC 2515
Case: [2016] NZHC 2515
Decision Date: 20 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The New Zealand Police, acting as the appellant, appealed a sentencing decision made by Judge Maze in the Timaru District Court on 2 August 2016. The respondent, Mr Vuetaki, was sentenced to 130 hours of community service for one count of male assaults female and one count of common assault. The appellant contends that the sentence is either manifestly inadequate or that a significant error of principle was made by the sentencing Judge. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate or resulted from a significant error in principle.

In determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, the court considered the maximum sentence for the particular offence, comparable sentences, and the totality of the offending and the culpability of the offender. The court noted that the maximum sentence for male assaults female is two years' imprisonment, and for common assault, it is one year imprisonment. The court also considered several comparable cases where offenders received sentences ranging from five to nine months' imprisonment for similar offences. However, the court also acknowledged cases where community service was imposed as a penalty. The court concluded that the District Court's sentence of 130 hours of community service, while merciful, was within reasonable sentencing parameters and did not constitute a manifest inadequacy or error in principle.

The court took into account the consequences of the conviction for the respondent, including the potential for deportation and separation from his son, as well as the loss of employment and immigration status. The court found that the District Court's sentencing decision was not manifestly inadequate or based on a significant error of principle.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 130 hours of community service for Mr Vuetaki was upheld.

Orders