Legal Research
Cases
R v Feleti

R v Feleti

Case [2019] NZHC 94 7 February 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT'S HOME DETENTION ADDRESS PROHIBITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-10594

[2019] NZHC 94

THE QUEEN

v

LIMA TERRY FELETI

Hearing: 7 February 2019

Appearances:

L Radich for Crown

L O Smith for Defendant

Sentence:

7 February 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v LIMA TERRY FELETI [2019] NZHC 94 [7 February 2019]

Introduction

[1] Lima Feleti, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Hamuwera Holloway.1 That was after you accepted a sentence indication which I provided on 19 November 2018.2 You are to be sentenced on the basis of the agreed summary of facts, which you accept as true.

[2] Before I begin, I acknowledge the attendance of the two families who are deeply affected by the tragedy that has brought us together: Mr Feleti’s aiga and Hamuwera Holloway’s whānau. Those who were close to Mr Holloway are here in great numbers. Mr Feleti’s family are also victims in a very real sense.

The facts

[3] The tragic circumstances that led to Mr Holloway’s death are that, on Friday 7 September 2018, you were aged 18 years old and Mr Holloway was 19. You worked together as machine operators at Charta Packaging in East Tamaki.

[4] Shortly before 8.40 pm that evening, Mr Holloway and you were working together on a cardboard splitting machine. You were feeding cardboard through the machine, while Mr Holloway and another were stacking the cut product in preparation for the next stage in the process.

[5] At one point, you mis-fed cardboard through the machine, causing it to fall out and onto the ground. Annoyed, Mr Holloway picked it up and threw it at you. Although the cardboard missed you, an argument began and the two of you walked towards one another as if intending to fight. A co-worker separated you and told you it was not worth fighting at work as you might get fired. You both returned to the machine but, shortly after that, you picked up a metal machine tool and threw it at Mr Holloway who was standing not far away on the other side of the machine.

[6] The T-shaped tool was approximately 25 cm long and 14 cm wide, and weighed 364 grams. So it was not very big or heavy, but it hit Mr Holloway in the face and he

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160 and 171; the maximum penalty is life imprisonment (s 177).
2 R v Feleti [2018] NZHC 2992.

fell to the ground, bleeding heavily. You panicked, apologised, and attempted to give him first aid. He was removed by staff, but died a short time later as a result of a penetrating injury to his left cheek, immediately below his left eye.

[7] Police attended the scene. You were upset and immediately expressed remorse. You explained you lost your temper and threw the tool at Mr Holloway’s stomach. You said you did…

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 Feleti

Details

AGLC: R v Feleti [2019] NZHC 94
Case: [2019] NZHC 94
Decision Date: 7 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lima Feleti, a young man of 18 years, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Hamuwera Holloway, following a tragic workplace altercation that resulted in Mr Holloway's death. The incident occurred when Feleti threw a metal tool at Mr Holloway, striking him in the face and causing fatal injuries. The court, presided over by Toogood J, acknowledged the deep grief experienced by both families and outlined the approach to sentencing, emphasizing the purposes and principles of denunciation, deterrence, accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering Feleti's personal circumstances, and deciding whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment or home detention. The court assessed the gravity of the offence, noting it was a rash and impulsive act without premeditation, and set a starting point of three years' imprisonment. The personal circumstances of Feleti, including his youth, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation, were thoroughly evaluated. Feleti's age, lack of prior convictions, efforts in rehabilitation programs, and support from his family and community were considered mitigating factors. The court also took into account aggravating factors, such as Feleti's breach of bail conditions.

In sentencing, the court applied discounts for Feleti's guilty plea, remorse, and youth, leading to a provisional sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment. Considering the least restrictive outcome, the court opted for home detention, imposing a sentence of ten months, acknowledging Feleti's suitability for rehabilitation and the severe consequences of imprisonment for a young offender. The sentence also included conditions for Feleti to complete specified educational and rehabilitation programs.

Orders