R v Aoapaau - [2012] NZHC 700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-092-19159 [2012] NZHC 700

THE QUEEN

v

CYNTHYIAH MARINA AOAPAAU

Hearing: 17 April 2012
(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: J A Ongley for Crown
R P Chambers for Prisoner

Sentence: 17 April 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] I have to sentence you today on one conviction for perjury relating to the false evidence you gave at your ex-husband’s trial for murder in June 2010.1

[2] Your offending started during the homicide investigation into the death of a Mr Motunuu. The investigation led to the man who was then your husband, Mr Aiono, being charged with Mr Motunuu’s murder. In early 2009, whilst your ex-husband was in Samoa, you had a brief sexual relationship with Mr Motunuu. When Mr Aiono returned from Samoa on 24 February 2009, he confronted you about the relationship and made threats towards Mr Motunuu. On 25 February 2009,
the Crown case is that Mr Aiono went to Mr Motunuu’s address in Manurewa, and

1 R v Aiono HC Auckland CRI-2008-092-3238, commencing 8 June 2010.

assaulted him with a concrete paver and kicks and punches to the head. Mr Motunuu died later that night in Middlemore Hospital from the injuries from that assault. You say you were not aware of Mr Aiono’s violent intentions until he arrived home that evening and you saw blood on his hands.

[3] The following day, you and Mr Aiono became aware that there was Police activity at the Manurewa address and you came to the conclusion that Mr Motunuu had died. You expected to be questioned by the Police and you and Mr Aiono decided to create a false, made-up version of events by telling the Police that you had told Mr Aiono that you had been raped by Mr Motunuu and that that had provoked Mr Aiono’s assault. Mr Aiono was arrested and charged with murder following the Police interviews. On 27 February 2009, you were interviewed again by Police, when you admitted that you had consensual sex with Mr Motunuu, but you still said that you had told Mr Aiono that you were raped. The Police obtained a statement from a cousin of yours, which revealed that you had told that cousin that you and Mr Aiono were going to make up a story of rape to the Police, a statement which you later denied.

[4] You were then called by the Crown to give evidence at Mr Aiono’s trial for murder, commencing on 8 June 2010 at the Auckland High Court. Your evidence was consistent with your Police interview: that is, that you had told Mr Aiono that you had been raped by Mr Motunuu, even although you did in fact have consensual sex with him. The nature of this evidence was important to both the Crown and defence cases, as Mr Aiono was relying on the defence of provocation. The trial was aborted in the second week for unrelated reasons and set down to recommence on
31…

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 Aoapaau

Details

AGLC: R v Aoapaau [2012] NZHC 700
Case: [2012] NZHC 700
Decision Date: 17 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Cynthyiah Marina Aoapaau involved sentencing for perjury committed during the trial of the defendant's ex-husband, Mr Aiono, who was charged with the murder of Mr Motunuu. The defendant, Aoapaau, provided false evidence at the trial, claiming she had been raped by Motunuu and that this information provoked her ex-husband's assault, when in fact, she had consensual sex with Motunuu. Following the first trial, Aoapaau admitted her false statements to the police and later confessed her actions at the second trial, pleading guilty to perjury. The legal issues involved determining an appropriate sentence for perjury, taking into account the circumstances and consequences of the offence, as well as any mitigating factors. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's motivation, and her personal circumstances, such as her youth, lack of prior convictions, and her pregnant state. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of 11 months' home detention, commencing on 21 May 2012, considering it a less restrictive sentence that still met the needs of deterrence and denunciation for the offence committed.

The final orders of the court were as follows: Aoapaau was sentenced to 11 months' home detention at 6/3 Tawai Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt, to commence at 7am on 21 May 2012. Until then, she would remain on bail with conditions that may be varied to enable her to travel to Auckland for the duration of her giving evidence at Mr Aiono's retrial. The court also considered deferring the start date of home detention until after the birth of her child, but ultimately decided against it, as it was confident that suitable arrangements would be made to accommodate her medical needs during the sentence.

Orders