IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-090-003263

[2021] NZHC 3409

THE QUEEN

v

ISAAC ALLEN HARNWELL

Hearing: 14 December 2021

Counsel:

AM McClintock and STL Teppett for Crown AG Speed and RB Keam for Defendant

Judgment:

14 December 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. AG Speed, Auckland.
RB Keam, Auckland.

R v HARNWELL [2021] NZHC 3409 [14 December 2021]

Offence and acknowledgment

[1] Isaac Harnwell, you appear for sentence on one charge of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.1

[2] I acknowledge the presence of your family and friends, and the presence of family and friends of the victim, Coubin Tamatoa. Today will be hard for all of you.

[3] My task is to sentence according to law. Among other things, this means I must impose a sentence consistent with similar cases. No sentence is a measure of the victim’s life. And, of course, no sentence can change what has happened. Or as one victim expressed this morning, no sentence can bring Mr Tamatoa back.

The offending

[4] Mr Harnwell, you killed the victim. You twice wounded him with a knife. You first cut Mr Tamatoa’s eye socket. You then stabbed him to the chest. The knife penetrated the ribs and heart. Mr Tamatoa died at the scene, which I call Trig Road.

[5] The background is important. You went to Trig Road with your girlfriend 4 August 2020. You did so to recover a drug debt. You knew the victim, Mr Tamatoa. You and he had a difficult relationship. You believed Mr Tamatoa had shot at you days earlier.2 But, you thought Mr Tamatoa would not be at Trig Road. He arrived unexpectedly. His former partner, Ms Rapihana suggested you hide in a bedroom. You did for several hours while an eventful gathering at Trig Road unfolded.

[6] Mr Tamatoa was suspicious you were at Trig Road. He had a friend block the driveway with his car, presumably to prevent your escape. He repeatedly said to those present he would harm you. Mr Tamatoa was violent and erratic that evening. Among other things, he held a pistol to Ms Rapihana’s neck and threatened to kill her. Mr Tamatoa also had a fist fight with another man. At some point, your girlfriend went into the bedroom and gave you a kitchen knife.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172.
2 Or orchestrated the shooting.

[7] In the early hours the next day, Mr Tamatoa found you in the bedroom. No one saw what happened next. However, it is beyond doubt you quickly wounded Mr Tamatoa with a knife—twice. As observed, you first cut him about the eye. You then stabbed him to the chest. Mr Tamatoa stumbled out of the bedroom holding his eye. You fled the scene and hid from Police.

[8] You later told Police Mr Tamatoa fell onto the knife. Plainly, that was untrue. You also…

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 Harnwell

Details

AGLC: R v Harnwell [2021] NZHC 3409
Case: [2021] NZHC 3409
Decision Date: 14 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with the case of The Queen versus Isaac Allen Harnwell, wherein Harnwell was charged with the manslaughter of Coubin Tamatoa. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Harnwell, who had been found guilty of manslaughter by a jury. The legal issues before the court included the determination of the appropriate starting point for the sentence, consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors, and the overall sentencing in accordance with legal principles and precedents.

The court meticulously examined the circumstances surrounding the offence, noting that Harnwell had used a knife to wound Tamatoa twice, leading to his death. The court considered various factors, including the use of a weapon, the significant force applied, and the devastating impact on the victims' families. The court also weighed Harnwell’s criminal history, which included multiple instances of violence, against the mitigating factors presented, such as Harnwell’s upbringing and the influence of substance abuse and trauma.

After evaluating these factors, the court decided on a starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment, adjusted for the excessive use of force in self-defence and the mitigating circumstances. The court ultimately sentenced Harnwell to five years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of Coubin Tamatoa, emphasizing that the sentence was intended to reflect the gravity of the offence while considering the unique aspects of the case.

Orders