R v Aiono - [2012] NZHC 1752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-092-3238 [2012] NZHC 1752

THE QUEEN

v

SOLOFA AIONO

Hearing: 11 July 2012

Appearances: J C Gordon SC and K V Mills for Crown
M N Pecotic for Prisoner

Judgment: 11 July 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland:
christine.gordon@meredithconnell.co.nz / kate.mills@meredithconnell.co.nz

Counsel: M N Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland: mariapecotic@hotmail.com

R V SOLOFA AIONO HC AK CRI-2009-092-3238 [11 July 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Aiono, you appear for sentence having been convicted of the murder of Mose Motunuu on 24 May 2012. Your conviction followed a jury trial at which I was the presiding Judge. That was the third trial that there had been of the case against you.

[2] Mr Aiono, I am going to summarise the facts of the case and then move to the sentencing process. Fortunately there is considerable agreement between what Crown counsel has told me and what your own lawyer has said is appropriate and I congratulate them both on their excellent and very fair, I have to say, submissions.

Background

[3] Let us consider the relevant events.

[4] In December 2008, you, your wife Tausilia, your son Francis – who was only a baby at the time, Mose – who was a good friend of yours – and another man moved into a house together. All went well and everyone got along.

[5] You then had to return to Samoa in early 2009 to deal with some family matters. You left Auckland on 1 February 2009, having made arrangements for Tausilia and your son Francis to stay with family members while you were away.

[6] Now it is clear from the evidence, and from the phone calls and the text messages, that you became concerned about Tausilia’s conduct while you were away and, to put it bluntly, whether she was seeing other men. Tausilia was much younger than you, about 18 or 19 at the time and keen to go out and socialise and have a good time. As it turned out, whilst you were away Tausilia had consensual sexual intercourse with Mose, although what you were told about the matter is a different issue.

[7] You then came back to Auckland on 24 February 2009. Francis by that stage was in Middlemore Hospital. You and Tausilia stayed the night at the hospital and during the night Tausilia told you that Mose had raped her.

[8] The following day, 25 February, you asked Tausilia again what had gone on between her and Mose. At your first trial, Tausilia’s evidence was that she continued to tell you that Mose had raped her. However, shortly before the second trial in about August 2011 Tausilia changed her account and her evidence at the second trial, and again at the third, was that you asked her several times during 25 February 2009 to tell you what had happened, and that eventually she told you that the sex was consensual.

[9] Your lawyer, Ms Pecotic, put…

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 Aiono

Details

AGLC: R v Aiono [2012] NZHC 1752
Case: [2012] NZHC 1752
Decision Date: 11 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand delivered its judgment in the case of R v Aiono, where the defendant, Solofa Aiono, was convicted of the murder of Mose Motunuu. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's background. The legal issues involved in the case included whether the defendant's actions constituted murder or manslaughter, and whether the partial defence of provocation was applicable.

The court held that the defendant's attack on the victim was a violent and brutal assault, which lasted about five minutes. The defendant had punched, kicked, and stomped on the victim's head even when the victim was unconscious and incapable of defending himself. The court noted that the defendant's conduct in kicking and stomping on the victim, even when he was unconscious, was troubling. However, the court also considered the fact that the defendant had no prior convictions, aside from one for male assaults female in 2007, and that the defendant had shown remorse and made reparation to the victim's family.

After considering the nature of the assault and the circumstances of the case, the court determined that a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years was sufficient to hold the defendant accountable for the harm caused, to denounce the defendant's conduct, to deter the defendant and others from committing similar offences, and to protect the community from the defendant. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the defendant, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. The court also noted the defendant's out-of-character behaviour and the support from his family and friends, which were considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

In conclusion, the court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. The court took into account the nature of the assault, the defendant's background, and the circumstances of the case in determining the appropriate sentence. The court's decision reflects the importance of balancing the need to hold offenders accountable for their actions with the need to consider the individual circumstances of each case.

Orders