Legal Research
Cases
R v Havili

R v Havili

Case [2022] NZHC 753 12 April 2022

Rehabilitative Prospects

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-004-4422

[2022] NZHC 753

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL HAVILI

Defendant

Hearing: 12 April 2022

Appearances:

CP Paterson and HC Smaill for the Crown L Freyer and CG Wright for the Defendant

Sentenced:

12 April 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland

R v HAVILI [2022] NZHC 753 [12 April 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Havili, you appear for sentencing today for your role in the assault of two men, Ika (James) Vake and his brother Liufau Vake in May last year. To avoid confusion, I will refer to James and Liufau this morning by their first names, and I certainly mean no disrespect in doing so. Tragically, Liufau died as a result of the injuries he sustained. Mr Havili, you are therefore to be sentenced today having pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter1 and one representative charge of assault with intent to injure.2

[2] Before I go any further, I would like to acknowledge James, Liufau’s wife and daughter, and the broader Vake family. In an instant nearly a year ago, your lives were changed forever and you lost a husband, father, son and brother. I have read the victim impact statements that have been provided to me, and listened to that read here in Court this morning. I know that the sentence I impose today will not in any way compensate you for your loss. Indeed, nothing I say or do this morning can do that. But I hope that today’s sentencing brings you a step closer to closure, at least in terms of the court process, and I extend the Court’s deepest sympathy to you.

[3] I would also like to acknowledge your family, Mr Havili, especially your wife. You too are a husband, father, son and brother.

Facts

[4] I will begin by summarising the facts of your offending which are set out in a summary of facts which is agreed by both you and the Crown. As part of that summary of facts, I have been provided with CCTV footage which captures the events as they occurred. I have watched that footage closely, and many times now. The facts of your offending will be well known to you and the lawyers here in Court, but sentencing is a public process and it is important that the public is aware of what the Crown and you agree happened, and therefore the basis upon which I am sentencing you today. I am going to recount the circumstances of the offending in some detail, as the whole context of the fight is relevant to your sentencing.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 171 and 177. Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 193. Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

[5] In the early hours of the morning of Sunday 16 May 2021, at around 2.50 am, you left a bar on Symonds Street…

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 Havili

Details

AGLC: R v Havili [2022] NZHC 753
Case: [2022] NZHC 753
Decision Date: 12 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Daniel Havili, was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for his involvement in a fight that led to the death of Liufau Vake and an assault on James Vake. Havili pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter and one charge of assault with intent to injure. The court considered the aggravating factors, including the extent of the violence, the seriousness of the injury, and the fact that the offending involved an attack to the head. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as Havili's deprived upbringing, rehabilitative prospects, and remorse. The starting point for sentencing was four years' imprisonment, but after considering the mitigating factors and the guilty pleas, the final sentence was two years and nine months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The court acknowledged the victim, James Vake, Liufau's wife and daughter, and the broader Vake family, expressing sympathy for the loss they had endured. The court also acknowledged Havili's family, particularly his wife. The court took into account the gravity of the offending, the desirability of consistency with co-offenders, and the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances. The court imposed the sentence to hold Havili accountable for his conduct, to denounce his conduct, to deter him and others from such offending, and to provide for the interests of the victims of his offending.

Orders