R v Hausia
[2022] NZHC 752
•11 April 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE
CRI-2021-012-1443
CRI-2021-003-179 [2022] NZHC 752
THE QUEEN v
MANU HAUSIA
Hearing: 11 April 2022 Appearances:
S M H McManus for Crown J J McCall for Defendant
Judgment:
11 April 2022
[REDACTED] ORAL SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J
These remarks contain redactions of sensitive information
Introduction
[1]Mr Hausia, I am going to ask you to stand, please.
[2] Manu Hausia you appear for sentence on four charges, to which you pleaded guilty on 14 December 2021:
(a)attempted murder;1
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173 – maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
R v HAUSIA [2022] NZHC 752 [11 April 2022]
(b)wounding with intent to injure;2
(c)injuring with intent to injure;3 and
(d)assault on a child.4
[3] The most serious charge obviously is that of attempted murder — the maximum penalty for that, as you will know, is 14 years’ imprisonment.
[4] Mr Hausia, I am shortly going to ask you to sit again while I explain the sentence I will be imposing on you. Necessarily, this will take time. I will indicate to you towards the end when you need to stand again.
[5]Please be seated now.
[6] In the course of what I have to say, I am going to speak about you in the third person — not speaking to you but speaking about you because I need to explain in Court what happened during your offending. So, I will first speak about the facts, that is, not only from the summary of facts but also the victim impact statements and the other reports I have received. When I have then turned to assess a sentence, I will have identified the appropriate term of imprisonment and, finally, I have to consider whether you will serve the minimum period of that sentence before you become eligible to be released from Prison on parole.
The facts
[7] Mr Hausia is a 28-year-old Tongan national who came to New Zealand in March 2020 on an interim visitor visa. That visa has since been extended because of Covid-19-related travel restrictions which effectively stranded Mr Hausia in New Zealand.
2 Crimes Act, s 188(2) – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3 Crimes Act, s 189(2) – maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
4 Crimes Act, s 194(a) – maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
[8] The first victim in this matter, [called “G” herein], is a 30-year-old woman who at the time of the offending had been in a relationship with Mr Hausia for seven or eight months. The couple had started living together shortly after meeting in early 2021. [REDACTED]. Ms G resides in Oamaru.
[9] The second victim, [called “L” herein], is a 25-year-old woman who is Ms G’s cousin. The third victim is [REDACTED].
Injuring with intent to injure
[10] At about midnight on 19 June 2021, Mr Hausia was at a residential address in Oamaru waiting for Ms G to return home from church. When she arrived home, he confronted her and requested to see her phone. While Mr Hausia was checking her phone, she went to have a shower. She then lay down in bed. Without provocation, Mr Hausia punched her in the head using full force. Ms G screamed and put her arms up in defence. As she lay there, Mr Hausia continued to rain punches down onto Ms G’s face, head and body, causing her to lose consciousness.
[11] Ms G’s one-year-old son, who had been asleep in his crib approximately two metres from the bed, started crying. That distracted Mr Hausia from the assault. While he was distracted, Ms G regained consciousness. She was able to stumble off the bed and crawl into [REDACTED]’s bedroom where she blacked out again. Mr Hausia was still angry and followed her into the bedroom. However, [REDACTED] intervened, preventing Mr Hausia from continuing the assault on [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] called the police. Ms G was attended to by emergency services and admitted to Oamaru Hospital. She received treatment for severe facial swelling, head injuries, bruising to her upper body, back, shoulders and arms, bleeding from both ears, and she was diagnosed with concussion.
[12] Mr Hausia fled the property before police arrived but was located in Ashburton later that day. Mr Hausia admitted to punching Ms G numerous times due, he said, to a misunderstanding. He was arrested. He was granted bail to reside at an Ashburton address with strict conditions not to contact Ms G or travel south of the Waitaki River.
However, at the beginning of August 2021, he left his bail address in Ashburton and returned to live with Ms G [REDACTED] in breach of bail.5
Attempted murder
[13] In the early hours of 2 September 2021, following a prolonged drinking session, Mr Hausia began arguing with Ms G at her address. She asked Mr Hausia to leave but he refused to do so. Becoming increasingly concerned at Mr Hausia’s behaviour, Ms G called 111 and asked police to assist in removing him.
[14] While she was speaking to the 111 call-taker, Mr Hausia grabbed Ms G around the neck and held her in a stranglehold. Mr Hausia then used either a kitchen knife and/or a pair of scissors to stab Ms G repeatedly. He stabbed her in the back, arms, face, head, shoulders and upper body. While he continued his attack, he put both his hands around her neck and squeezed his thumbs into her neck so she could not breathe. Throughout the attack Mr Hausia threatened Ms G in Tongan. He said, “this will be the last time anyone will ever see you”. He also said that “I will be the last person on earth that you will see”.
[15] Ms G recalled feeling like she was going to “fall asleep”. It led her to fight back. She began screaming in terror and tried unsuccessfully to break out of his stranglehold and to push him off. Ms G’s screams woke up [REDACTED] as well as Ms L. Ms L was staying the night at Ms G’s house. The two children went to the lounge and saw Mr Hausia repeatedly stabbing [REDACTED] as she screamed for help covered in blood.
Wounding with intent to injure
[16] Ms L upon seeing the assault attempted to intervene. She tried to push Mr Hausia away from Ms G. He turned and lunged at Ms L with either the knife or scissors, stabbing and cutting her.
5 Defence counsel claimed that, approximately a month after the June 2021 assault, Ms G arrived at Mr Hausia’s Ashburton bail address unannounced and invited him to recommence living together with her in Oamaru. Mr Hausia said he was unaware that his terms of bail prohibited him returning to Ms G’s address in circumstances where she had invited him to do so.
Assault on a child
[17] [REDACTED] also attempted to stop Mr Hausia attacking his mother. Mr Hausia turned and punched the child in the face above the eye. Ms L grabbed both children and pulled them away into a hallway out of Mr Hausia’s reach. Mr Hausia continued to attack Ms G while Ms L and the children were in the hallway.
Aftermath
[18] After a period, Mr Hausia stopped the attack and left the house. Mr Hausia attempted to take Ms G’s car but was unable to because it was locked. He fled on foot as emergency services arrived. While climbing over a fence into a neighbouring property, he dropped a knife. The knife was covered in blood. Mr Hausia handed himself into the police approximately seven hours later. He declined to be interviewed and gave no explanation for his actions.
Ms G’s and Ms L’s injuries
[19]Both Ms G and Ms L were taken to Oamaru Hospital for treatment.
[20] Ms G was later transferred to Dunedin Hospital for surgery. The scissor blades were found by medical staff tangled in Ms G’s hair. Ms G sustained the following injuries:
(a)nine stab wounds to the back;
(b)three stab wounds to the face (including one that completely penetrated her cheek and another that narrowly missed her left eye);
(c)two stab wounds to the back of her head; and
(d)a stab wound to the arm and shoulder.
[21] Ms G also suffered two lacerations on her hand, extensive bruising to her lower face, jaw and neck (consistent with strangulation), significant blood loss, and damage to her salivary glands that hindered her ability to swallow, talk and eat and has required
further surgery. By sheer chance, none of Ms G’s injuries was life-threatening. The stabbing had missed vital organs by millimetres.
[22] Ms L suffered a deep stab wound to her left thigh and a slashing cut across her left cheek.
Victim impact statements
[23]Ms G and Ms L both provided victim impact statements in September 2021.
[24] Ms G recounted that as a result of the assault she remained in hospital for a week and a half and later had to spend another week in hospital after one of her wounds became infected. She stated that she was still very sore and has limited movement but was slowly recovering. Ms G said she could not face going back to her Oamaru home. She wanted to move back to Auckland to be with her family, which would cost a lot. She said the hardest aspect of the offending was seeing the effect it had on her children. [REDACTED]. She spoke of being too sore to hold and comfort them. She said she was continuing to experience flashbacks of the events that day.
[25] In a short statement, Ms L expressed her concern for Ms G and the effect of the offending on Ms G and her children.
[26] I acknowledge today each of Mr Hausia’s victims, Ms G, [REDACTED] and Ms L. I especially acknowledge the bravery of [REDACTED] and of Ms L in their protection of Ms G. They acted in the face of an horrific attack and without regard for their own safety. [REDACTED]’s conduct is all the more remarkable both for his age and because he intervened in both the June and September attacks. His intervention in June may well have presented a much worse outcome on that occasion. Without the combined actions of Ms L and [REDACTED] in September, Ms G might well have died. Mr Hausia would then have been facing today a sentence of life imprisonment. I consider Ms L and [REDACTED] are worthy of the highest commendation.
Reports
[27] I received also and considered two reports — first, a pre-sentence report from the Department of Corrections and, secondly, a report from Ms Byllie-Jean Zeta under s 27 Sentencing Act. I will come to those shortly.
Approach to sentencing
[28] In sentencing Mr Hausia, a two-step approach is required.6 First, I will adopt a starting point that incorporates the aggravating and mitigating features of Mr Hausia’s offending. Secondly, I will consider the mitigating factors personal to Mr Hausia, including a credit for his guilty pleas.
[29] I must have regard to the statutory purposes of sentencing. Those include holding Mr Hausia accountable for his actions, promoting in Mr Hausia a sense of responsibility, denouncing and deterring his conduct, protecting the community and assisting in his rehabilitation and reintegration back into society.7 I must also take into account the statutory principles of sentencing. Those include the gravity, the seriousness, of Mr Hausia’s offending, the seriousness of the particular type of offences, the desirability of sentencing consistently with other cases, the effect on the victims, and Mr Hausia’s personal background.8
Starting point
[30] The lead offending in this case is the attempted murder of Ms G. Without a guideline judgment for the charge of attempted murder, the starting point is usually set by reference to the three sentencing bands in R v Taueki. R v Taueki sets bands for grievous bodily harm offences.9 The fact a defendant intended to murder his victim calls for a longer sentence than would otherwise be imposed for an offence where the intention was to cause grievous bodily harm.10
6 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.
7 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.
8 Sentencing Act, s 8.
9 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA). See Marsters v R [2011] NZCA 505.
10 Taylor v R [2017] NZCA 53 at [21], approved in Ali v R [2019] NZCA 35 at [8].
Aggravating features of the offending
[31] In Taueki, the Court outlined the features of serious violent offending that contribute to the seriousness of the conduct and the criminality involved.11 The aggravating features I find to be present in this case are as follows:
(a)Extreme violence — the September attack on Ms G was prolonged and unprovoked and involved extreme violence.
(b)Serious injury — Ms G sustained very serious injuries.
(c)Use of weapons — the use of a knife and/or scissors is a serious aggravating factor.
(d)Attack to the head — there was a sustained attack to Ms G’s head, combined with strangulation. That constitutes a further aggravating factor.
(e)The vulnerability of the victims — this was an attack on a defenceless woman, her guest, and then [REDACTED]. It was in Ms G’s home where she had no means of defending herself. Violence perpetrated in a family home against a co-occupant involves special issues of vulnerability.12
[32] In Taueki, the Court of Appeal identified band three for serious offending that has three or more aggravating features.13
[33] Mr Hausia’s offending had five aggravating features. Responsibly, Mr McCall has accepted this offending clearly falls within band three of Taueki.
11 R v Taueki, above n 9, at [31].
12 Solicitor-General v Hutchison [2018] NZCA 162, [2018] 3 NZLR 420 at [27].
13 R v Taueki, above n 9, at [40], [41(b)].
[34] To assess the full culpability of Mr Hausia’s attack on Ms G, I also have regard to other aggravating factors identified in the Sentencing Act:14
(a)the September offending was committed within three months of a previous brutal attack on Ms G which itself warranted a sentence of imprisonment;
(b)it was committed in front of children; and
(c)it was committed while Mr Hausia was on bail.
[35]This was particularly grave offending.
[36] To determine precisely where Mr Hausia’s offending falls within the range (that is, from nine to 14 years’ imprisonment), I have considered a number of cases. In a schedule which I will attach to my sentencing notes, I have set out details of eight cases, several of which have particularly assisted me. Three of the cases were R v Nelson, R v O’Kane and R v Owens. In those, there were aspects of home invasion which are not present in this case. The starting points in those three cases were 11 years or more. Also not present in this case is the serious element of pre-meditation and planning that is present in a number of the cases. On the other hand is a case such as R v Ae. It involved more pre-meditation than here but considerably less serious violence than Mr Hausia inflicted. In R v Ae, the starting point was nine-and-a-half years.
[37] The cases which I have found most similar to this are R v Walker, R v Santos and R v Armstrong. In those cases, the starting points were either 10 years’ imprisonment or 10 years six months’ imprisonment.
[38] In their written submissions, counsel referred me to two other cases: R v Emery15 and R v Vaigafa.16 Those were band two cases and I have not found particular guidance in them.
14 Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1).
15 R v Emery [2012] NZHC 391.
16 R v Vaigafa [2020] NZHC 2608.
[39] On my assessment, the appropriate starting point in this case for the attempted murder is 10 years’ imprisonment.
Uplift from starting point
[40] Here there must also be an uplift from that starting point. I must determine a sentence which reflects the totality of the offending — that is, taking into account all four charges.
[41] First, there is the charge of injuring Ms G with intent to injure her, that was committed almost three months before the attempted murder. The maximum penalty for that offence is five years’ imprisonment.
[42] In the context of a totality approach, I consider that a sentence of six months’ imprisonment would be warranted.
[43] That brings us to the September offending and the additional crimes committed in the course of that offending. That is, Mr Hausia’s wounding Ms L with intent to injure her. That offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. Secondly, there was the assault on [REDACTED].
[44] Having regard to totality principles, I am satisfied that appropriate sentences in relation to those uplifts on the attempted murder sentence would be 11 months’ imprisonment and four months’ respectively.
[45]Those uplifts — six months, 11 months and four months — total 21 months.
[46] I view that as an appropriate uplift on a totality basis notwithstanding the Crown’s suggestion that an 18 month uplift might be appropriate.
[47] That means the total starting point sentence is 11 years and nine months’ imprisonment.
Mitigating features of the offending
[48] I accept the Crown’s submission that there were no mitigating features of Mr Hausia’s offending. Mr McCall has not suggested otherwise.
Discount for mitigating personal factors
[49] I can indicate at this point that in arriving at an appropriate sentence I will be giving Mr Hausia credit for a number of matters. First, for his guilty pleas, secondly some allowance for remorse, thirdly some allowance for the disproportionate impact of him serving a prison sentence in New Zealand and lastly I will recognise his previous good character.
Guilty pleas
[50] Mr Hausia is entitled to a full credit of 25 per cent to reflect his guilty pleas made at the first reasonable opportunity.
Personal background
[51] For Mr Hausia’s background I have both the s 27 report and the pre-sentence report from the Department of Corrections.
[52] Neither report provides a clear link between Mr Hausia’s upbringing and the offences committed in June and September 2021.
[53] Mr Hausia appears to have had a good upbringing in his home in Tonga in a family of eight children. His father left when Mr Hausia was 12 years old but Mr Hausia had and retains a close, supportive relationship with his mother. The family, including Mr Hausia, have a close relationship to their church.
[54] Mr Hausia left school at 15 years of age to enter the carpentry trade. He has also been part of a rugby training programme. He had a relationship which, before separation, produced two children. He has described that relationship as involving no family harm.
[55] Mr Hausia’s rugby brought him on a three-week trip to New Zealand just before the first Covid-19 lockdown. Through travel restrictions and temporary visas, he has resided first in Auckland before moving to Oamaru to live with Ms G and her four children.
[56] There is nothing in Mr Hausia’s childhood to point to a history of family violence towards him or his immediate family. He has stated he never witnessed violence between his parents. The s 27 report refers to Mr Hausia witnessing regular violence in his extended family but goes on to record that nothing stands out for him.
[57] Mr Hausia appears to have grown up in a patriarchal, controlled environment. It appears from the s 27 report that he may have developed a difficulty in coping on his own in New Zealand. The writer noted Mr Hausia’s frequent use of the word “humble” to describe women he admires.
[58] The s 27 reporter referred in detail to the pressures on Mr Hausia when he came to live in Ms G’s household. It is reported there were the four children in the household while Ms G was working. Mr Hausia took on domestic responsibilities. It is clear from what Mr Hausia told the report writer that he came to see himself as a victim of verbal or emotional abuse.
[59] Mr McCall responsibly referred to these background matters of Mr Hausia settling into New Zealand. He accepted that at most they provide context for Mr Hausia’s offending. They clearly do not justify it at all, let alone to the extent to which Mr Hausia acted upon it in an apparent desire to control the situation.
[60] The s 27 report writer states that Mr Hausia explained that before the September offending he had become very drunk. Obviously, that does not in any way justify the September attack. It also does nothing to explain the June attack. That attack again appears to be substantially related to Mr Hausia’s control of the victim. I note again his explanation at the time of the June attack that it followed a misunderstanding. That was entirely consistent with a sense of entitlement to have and exert control over his partner.
[61] The reports give an overarching impression of the September offending. It is that Mr Hausia’s inability to control his anger combined that month with his need to control his relationship. I am satisfied that nothing in his upbringing caused or was instrumental in Mr Hausia’s offending in June or September 2021.
Dislocation from family and culture
[62] Mr McCall submitted that Mr Hausia has effectively been dislocated from his family and culture as a result of being stranded in New Zealand. He submitted that, having regard to the disproportionate effect of imprisonment upon Mr Hausia, a discount of five to 10 per cent would be appropriate.
[63]Section 8(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides a basis for such a discount.
[64] The decision of the Court of Appeal in Cheng v R recognises a range of five to 10 per cent for such discounts.17 Mr Hausia’s present inability to speak English and his dislocation from his family and culture in Tonga will significantly affect him in prison.
[65] Mr Hausia’s ability to meaningfully engage with services and to rehabilitate while in prison will be affected for at least a significant period. I am satisfied a discount of five per cent is warranted to reflect the disproportionate effect upon Mr Hausia of imprisonment in New Zealand.
Remorse?
[66] I candidly say I struggled with the issue of remorse in relation to Mr Hausia’s case. There is much in Mr Hausia’s discussion with the report writers that reflected a continuing endeavour to shift blame for his extreme and unprovoked violence. The shifting of blame is difficult to line up with genuine remorse. That said, I accept Mr McCall’s appropriate reference to the views of the Corrections report writer. The report writer appeared to accept the genuineness of statements of shame and regret by
17 Cheng v R [2021] NZCA 68 at [22]–[23], citing Gao v R [2018] NZCA 69 at [21]; and Tran v R [2017] NZCA 146 at [30]–[33]. See also Chai v R [2020] NZCA 202 at [34]; and Wan v R [2020] NZCA 328 at [35]. Also at [24].
Mr Hausia. The report writer noted Mr Hausia’s willingness to take part in restorative justice as a vehicle for apologising to his victims.
[67] To the extent that remorse is not fully reflected in the discount for a guilty plea, I consider a further discount of five per cent is appropriate in Mr Hausia’s case.
Good character
[68] Although it was not separately raised by counsel, I consider a discount is appropriate to recognise the evidence of Mr Hausia’s previous good character.18 Mr Hausia does not have a criminal history either in New Zealand or Tonga. The reports indicate positive contributions made by him to his community in Tonga, both as a carpenter and for his rugby representation.19 There has also been involvement with his church as well as the support for his broader family. That said, I must also take into account that the offending here was not a momentary, isolated lapse.20 Taking all those matters into account, I consider a discount of 10 per cent is justified to reflect Mr Hausia’s previous good character.
Combination of discounts
[69] When the discounts I have allowed are combined, they total 45 per cent (25 per cent for a guilty plea, five per cent on account of the disproportionate severity of the sentences, five per cent for remorse and 10 per cent for Mr Hausia’s previous good character). Discounted from the starting point of 11 years and nine months’ imprisonment, that produces an end sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[70] The Crown initially submitted in its written submissions that the Court should consider imposing a minimum period of imprisonment.
18 Sentencing Act, s 9(2)(g).
19 See Manawaiti v R [2013] NZCA 88 at [19].
20 R v Hockley [2009] NZCA 74 at [31]; Britow v R [2017] NZCA 229 at [10]–[12]; Chai v R, above n 17 at [27]–[31].
[71] The Court has a discretion under s 86 of the Sentencing Act to provide for the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment.
[72] Ms McManus today, upon reflection, has indicated that the Crown accepts that it need not in this case submit that a minimum period of imprisonment would be appropriate.
[73] I am also satisfied having regard to the purposes identified in s 86(2) of the Sentencing Act that a minimum period is not required.
[74] In that regard, I pick up on Ms McManus’s submission that as Mr Hausia embarks on his steps towards rehabilitation, the process is likely to take longer for him in prison than it would for other prisoners.
[75] I also have regard to the fact that Mr Hausia will likely, as a result of this offending, be deported to Tonga at the end of his sentence.
Conclusion
[76]Mr Hausia, would you please now stand.
[77] Mr Hausia, I need to take you through three steps. The first is to convict you; the second is to give you a strike warning; and the third is to sentence you, and then, in conclusion, I will make a protection order in favour of Ms G.
[78] Mr Hausia, I convict you of the four charges to which you have pleaded guilty, namely:
(a)the attempted murder;
(b)the wounding with intent to injure;
(c)the injuring with intent to injure; and
(d)the assault on a child.
[79] Now, I am required to give you a strike warning. Mr McCall will undoubtedly go through this written document with you when he has a chance to. But this is what it says:
Given your convictions for attempted murder and wounding with intent to injure, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice which contains a list of these ‘serious violent offences’.
1.If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.
2.If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.
[80]And I now impose sentence. I sentence you as follows:
(a)On the charge of attempted murder, you are sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment (and so you understand when I come to the next sentences, these will be served at the same time as the sentence on attempted murder — they are not in addition to it).
(b)On the charge of injuring with intent to injure you are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
(c)On the charge of wounding with intent to injure you are sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment.
(d)On the charge of assault on a child you are sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
(e)The sentences on the last three charges are to be served concurrently, that is, at the same time with the sentence on the attempted murder charge.
[81] Mr Hausia, I also make a protection order against you under s 123B Sentencing Act 2002 in favour of G as the protected person.
[82]Mr Hausia, I thank you for the way you have conducted yourself this afternoon
— it has been a long day for you and I appreciate your concentration and courtesy.
[83]You may stand down.
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Timaru Papprills, Christchurch
SCHEDULE OF CASES
Rv Nelson (2005):21 the victim was the defendant’s ex-partner. The defendant went to the victim’s mother’s address where the victim was living. He hit her in the face and head with his fists. The victim’s mother intervened but he pushed her over. The victim tried to flee but he followed her. The defendant pulled knives from a cutlery drawer and subjected the victim to a frenzied stabbing attack. He continued to stab her when she collapsed on the floor. He stabbed her a total of eight times. The aggravating factors were extreme and somewhat prolonged violence, a degree of premeditation, serious injury, targeting of the head, use of a lethal weapon, vulnerability of the victim, a home invasion at night when the victim was asleep, and the attack being witnessed by the victim’s young daughter. The Judge adopted a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment.
R v O’Kane (2009):22 the defendant watched a visitor leave his ex-partner’s home and verbally abused her. After the visitor left, he knocked on the door saying he wanted to cuddle her. When she opened the door, he produced a carving knife. The defendant attacked her with the knife. When she screamed he rammed his fingers down her throat. She then fell to the floor. In a frenzy the defendant stabbed her in the chest and abdomen repeatedly and slashed her hands and arms when she tried to defend herself. She suffered a stab wound to her chest, seven wounds to her abdomen and three to her back, lacerating her liver, spleen and lung. The aggravating factors were a significant element of premeditation, extreme use of force, lasting injuries, use of a lethal weapon, and a home invasion. Lang J considered a starting point between 11 and 11 and a half years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate but reduced that for mitigating factors related to the offending.
R v Walker (2015):23 the defendant invited the victim, his ex-partner, over for a drink after she informed him of her plans to travel overseas. When the victim later
21 R v Nelson HC Rotorua CRI-2004-077-15577, 16 August 2005.
22 R v O’Kane HC Dunedin CRI-2009-002-190, 2 April 2009.
23 R v Walker [2015] NZHC 3214.
declined to sleep with the defendant, he stabbed her in a frenzied attack with a 12-centimetre kitchen knife which he had concealed in his clothing. The victim was stabbed at least 15 times to her torso, arms and head with the defendant stopping only when the knife broke. The Court placed the offending within band three of Taueki, with aggravating factors including the high level of premeditation, the level of determination to kill the victim, and the very serious injuries inflicted (including a 10 to 12-centimetre stab wound to her chest that penetrated her lung and into her heart). A starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment was adopted.
R v Ae (2016):24 the defendant had been drinking heavily. He became agitated over the way the victim had treated his children. The victim and defendant were at the time in a relationship and living together. The defendant lured the victim home, having prepared two lengths of rope and three knives in anticipation of her arrival. When she arrived, he picked up a knife. The victim ran out of the house and down the street. The defendant pursued her, cornering her inside the sunroom of a nearby property. He forced her to the ground, knelt over her and stabbed her, resulting in lacerations to her hands, arms, face and scalp, and the near loss of her finger. The Court identified the relevant aggravating features were the level of premeditation, the use of weapons, extreme violence, attacking the head, serious injury and the vulnerability of the victim. A starting point of nine and a half years’ imprisonment was adopted.
R v Owens (2017):25 the victim was staying with the defendant’s ex-wife. When the victim opened the door to the property, the defendant grabbed her by the throat, pushed her into a wall, headbutted her and stabbed her in the shoulder with a kitchen knife he had brought with him. He stabbed her repeatedly while he held her by the throat. When she fled to the kitchen, he followed her and stabbed her repeatedly in the back. In all she was stabbed 14 times and required treatment in hospital for a week. The aggravating features were extreme violence as the attack was frenzied and ongoing, premeditation, serious injury, use of the knife, vulnerability of the victim and a home invasion. A starting
24 R v Ae [2016] NZHC 965.
25 R v Owens [2017] NZHC 319.
point was imposed of 11 years and six months’ imprisonment.
R v Santos (2019):26 the defendant pretended to be someone else on social media to arrange a meeting with his ex-girlfriend. When they met, he put his hands around her throat and said he wanted to kill her. After an argument the victim attempted to walk away but he grabbed her by the neck whilst holding a carving knife and stabbed her in the stomach. He struck her repeatedly with the knife about her torso as she fell to the ground and continued to strike her as she lay prone. In total he stabbed her more than 20 times, inflicting life-threatening injuries. Whata J identified the attack was pre-planned, there was extreme violence, a lethal weapon was used and caused serious injury and the victim was unsuspecting and vulnerable. He adopted a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.
R v Armstrong (2019):27 after the victim returned home following a night out, the defendant (her partner) stabbed her in the side of her chest with a large kitchen knife. It penetrated her chest cavity and was life threatening. When she implored him to stop, the defendant told her “neither of us is walking out of here tonight”. The victim then received trauma injuries to her head (she did not know how these injuries were inflicted) and at some point collapsed. When she regained consciousness the defendant was not there. She cried out for help but the defendant returned with the knife and attacked her again, stabbing and slashing her back. The victim managed to get down the stairs and collapsed outside but the defendant continued to attack her while she was on the ground. The victim was stabbed or cut a total of eight times. She was hospitalised for three weeks, had multiple surgeries and took several months to regain her health. The Judge noted the violence used was extreme and the weapon used was very dangerous. The repeated attack occurred in the victim’s home where she was entitled to feel safe and had no means of defending herself. A starting point of 10 years and six months’ imprisonment was adopted.
26 R v Santos [2019] NZHC 2670.
27 R v Armstrong [2019] NZHC 2904.
R v Nuku (2021):28 the defendant had been in a relationship with the victim for nine years. The defendant had previously been imprisoned for assaulting the victim and breaching a protection order made in her favour. The defendant saw the victim’s car parked outside a dairy. He parked his vehicle, put on gloves and approached the victim’s vehicle wearing a hood. The defendant then opened the victim’s car door, dived across the passenger seat and began stabbing her with a knife as part of a “frenzied and sustained attack” that continued for 40 seconds. The victim suffered 15 stab wounds to the torso and neck. The attack ended only when the victim managed to open the driver’s side door and fall out onto the road. The defendant fled. Doogue J identified a number of aggravating factors of the offending, including that the attack was unprovoked, prolonged and extremely violent, the use of a lethal weapon, the serious injuries suffered by the victim, the degree of premeditation, the targeting of the victim’s neck, and the fact the defendant invaded her vehicle while she was trapped inside. A starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment was adopted.
28 R v Nuku [2021] NZHC 410.
0
17
0