Legal Research
Cases
R v Chankau

R v Chankau

Case [2007] NZCA 587 19 December 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA265/07
[2007] NZCA 587
THE QUEEN
v
VAINUUPO STEVE CHANKAU
Hearing:22 November 2007

Court:Hammond, John Hansen and Miller JJ
Counsel:M F Tuilotolava for Appellant

B J Horsley for Crown

Judgment:19 December 2007 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        THE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION IS DISMISSED.
B        The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Miller J)
Introduction
[1]       On 31 March 2006 there was an affray at Waddon Place, Mangere, in which the appellant, who was aged 15 at the time, struck Teuila Mareko, a 51 year old woman, a powerful blow with a wooden kilikiti bat. She suffered serious head injuries.
[2]       The appellant was a member of a group called the G-U-Nuts, which the Crown characterised as a youth gang. It alleged that the appellant and his associates chased a member of another gang called the Crips. In his attempt to escape, the Crips member entered the address of the victim. He was said to have been assaulted there by one of the appellant’s associates, who then left the address.
[3]       Mrs Mareko and several members of her family followed these people to Waddon Place. Fighting ensued, involving the victim’s family, the appellant and his brother Shane, the co-accused Alexander Siagigi, and Mr Siagigi’s sister Neti. The victim’s family are said to have deployed sticks and fence palings. Mrs Mareko became involved in an attempt to separate the parties.
[4]       The appellant claims he did not participate initially. On his account, Neti was hit by a thrown stick and went to a car, where she fetched the bat and gave it to him. In the meantime Mr Siagigi was fighting with an older man and Shane was fighting the victim’s sons. In an attempt to defend his associates, the appellant swung the bat at the older man, who was attacking Mr Siagigi. He missed his intended target, and struck Mrs Mareko across the side of her face. She collapsed, and the accused and his associates fled.
[5]       The appellant and Mr Siagigi stood trial on 20 March 2007 on charges respectively of causing grievous bodily harm to Mrs Mareko with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assaulting a Mr Atafu using a weapon. Both gave evidence. Mr Siagigi was acquitted but the appellant was convicted. Judge Singh sentenced him to seven years imprisonment. He appeals against conviction and sentence.
The summing up
[6]       The appellant’s defences at trial were that he had acted in defence of another and/or there was no intent to cause grievous bodily harm. It is said that the Judge inaccurately and incompletely put these defences to the jury, and misdirected the jury on the availability of self-defence. The summing up was said to be unbalanced in that, while the Judge explained that the appellant said that others required protection, he did not refer to those other persons by their names, so having the probable effect of downplaying self-defence.
[7]…

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 Chankau

Details

AGLC: R v Chankau [2007] NZCA 587
Case: [2007] NZCA 587
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chankau involved an appeal against conviction and sentence by Vainuupo Steve Chankau, who had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to Teuila Mareko with intent, following an affray in Mangere. Chankau, a member of a group identified as a youth gang, claimed he had acted in self-defence or in defence of others. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand reviewed the case to determine if there were any errors in the trial judge's summing up or sentencing. The court held that the trial judge's summing up was balanced and adequately covered the defences of intent and self-defence. The court found no errors that would necessitate a different outcome regarding the conviction. In terms of sentencing, the court acknowledged the violent nature of the crime, the serious injury inflicted, and the appellant's lack of remorse and disruptive behaviour during trial. Despite the appellant's youth, lack of prior convictions, and mitigating factors, the court upheld the seven-year imprisonment sentence, finding it within the appropriate range given the circumstances.

Orders