R v Ae

Case [2016] NZHC 965 13 May 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-092-008437 [2016] NZHC 965

THE QUEEN

v

MATAAFA TAOIPU AE

Hearing: 13 May 2016

Appearances:

Luke Clancy for the Crown

Kahungunu Barron-Afeaki SC (Tonga) and Shannon Withers for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 May 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v AE [2016] NZHC 965 [13 May 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mataafa Taoipu Ae, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder and one charge of breaching a protection order.1

[2] In pleading guilty to those charges the Crown has agreed to offer no evidence in relation to the two remaining charges of aggravated burglary and threatening to kill. Accordingly those charges are dismissed.2

[3] The summary of facts is agreed and I am conscious that you are familiar with its contents. But because sentencing is an important public judicial function it is necessary I recite the relevant facts, particularly those facts which bear on and influence the sentence I intend to impose on you today.

Facts

[4] The victim in this matter is your wife of 10 years. You do not have children together. It is apparent that over recent years there have been issues between you. In fact, to the Probation Officer who prepared the pre-sentence report, you described the last five years of your marriage as “rocky”.

[5] But the problems between you go back even earlier than that. In May 2007 your wife was granted a temporary protection order against you and in August of that year the temporary protection order was made final. It was in force at the time of the attack on her which finds you before the Court today. And it is to those events I now turn.

[6] On 1 August last year you were at home alone. You were drinking heavily. You told the Probation Officer you consumed two litres of red wine. Plainly you were drunk. But that, of course, is no excuse for what later happened. Your wife was at church. You began to ruminate on how she had treated your children from
your previous marriage.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173; Domestic Violence Act 1995, s 49.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147.

[7] Obviously these thoughts developed into an obsession because you began to think about how you might commit violence against her.

[8] You telephoned her at the church several times and told her to come home. You then prepared two lengths of rope and three knives and laid them out in the hallway in anticipation of her arrival.

[9] When she got home an argument developed between the two of you. You picked up a knife. When your wife saw you do this she ran out of the house and down the street. You ran after her, knife in hand.

[10] She ran down the street before ducking into a property in an attempt to escape from you. She did not know the people who occupied that property and…

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 R v Ae

Details

AGLC: R v Ae [2016] NZHC 965
Case: [2016] NZHC 965
Decision Date: 13 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Mataafa Taoipu Ae, appeared for sentencing following his guilty plea to one charge of attempted murder and one charge of breaching a protection order. The Crown agreed to offer no evidence in relation to the remaining two charges of aggravated burglary and threatening to kill, which were subsequently dismissed. The victim in this matter was the defendant's wife of 10 years, who suffered serious stab wounds to her face, scalp, arms, and hands during the attack. The defendant had premeditated the attack by laying out ropes and knives in anticipation of his wife's arrival home. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, emphasizing the need to hold the defendant accountable for the harm done, denounce the conduct, and achieve consistency in sentencing levels.

The court found the defendant's offending to fall within Band 3 of Taueki, attracting a starting point of nine and a half years' imprisonment. The court accepted the Crown's submission that the defendant's offending falls towards the lower end of this band. The defendant's age, previous good character, remorse, and guilty plea were considered as mitigating factors. The court applied a discount of 20%, resulting in a sentence of six and a half years' imprisonment for the charge of attempted murder. The charge of breaching a protection order was to be served concurrently with the lead charge, resulting in a one-month imprisonment sentence. The defendant was sentenced to six years and six months' imprisonment for the charge of attempted murder and one month imprisonment for the charge of breaching a protection order, to be served concurrently.

Orders