Hearing: 11 April 2017

Counsel:

S B Manning and C R Stuart for Crown
E R Fairbrother QC and L P F Lafferty for Defendant

Sentencing:

11 April 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF THOMAS J

[1] Mr Huata, you were found guilty on one charge of manslaughter1 and one charge of injuring with intent to injure2 on 24 February 2017 following a jury trial before me in the Napier High Court.

[2] You appear today for sentence on those charges.

Facts

[3] The victim in this matter, MJ, was a two and a half year old boy. You were in

a relationship with MJ’s mother, Eranna, and the three of you were living together.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 171 and 177 (maximum penalty life imprisonment).
2 Section 189(2) (maximum penalty five years imprisonment).

R v HUATA [2017] NZHC 704 [11 April 2017]

[4] On Monday 12 October 2015, the three of you awoke having spent the night sleeping together in the lounge. MJ was changed out of his nappy and nightwear and given breakfast. He had no unusual marks or bruises on him at the time and seemed happy and in good spirits.

[5] At around 9.00 am Eranna left the house for work. As you and MJ were both suffering from colds, you remained at home together. You and MJ lay on a mattress watching TV in the lounge. At 10.10 am you exchanged texts with Eranna. Nothing appeared to be amiss at this point. At 10.15 am you told Eranna, via text, that you were going to shower yourself and MJ.

[6] At 10.51 am you phoned Eranna. You told her MJ was not well and asked her to come home. She arrived home at 11.00 am and found MJ unconscious and unresponsive on the mattress in the lounge. An ambulance was called shortly after
11.00 am. MJ was taken to hospital. He had suffered a significant bleed on the right side of his brain, a subdural haematoma. There were three marks with the appearance of bite marks on his body: on his right cheek, right shoulder, and left side of his chest. There were also other injuries and bruising on his face and body. MJ died on 14 October 2015 as a result of his head injury.

[7] On the day in question you were the only one at home with MJ. There was a period of 34 minutes between the last time you texted Eranna to the time you called asking her to come home. The Crown case was that, while you were generally a good step-father, on this particular occasion, you lost your temper and lashed out at MJ. This caused the head injury, multiple bruises and marks MJ suffered.

[8] Your defence was that the injuries must have been caused by accident. You told the police that while you were holding MJ…

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 Huata

Details

AGLC: R v Huata [2017] NZHC 704
Case: [2017] NZHC 704
Decision Date: 11 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Huata involved the sentencing of Tamihana Hemi Te Tau Huata, who was found guilty of manslaughter and injuring with intent to injure a two-and-a-half-year-old child, MJ. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these crimes, considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors. The key legal issue was whether Huata's actions constituted more than a momentary loss of control, given the severity of the injuries inflicted on the child. The court also needed to assess if Huata's failure to seek immediate medical help and his continued denial of responsibility were significant mitigating factors.

The court considered various precedents to establish a starting point for sentencing, recognising the unique nature of each case. It determined that the violence was more than a momentary loss of control due to the severity of the injuries, including the fatal head injury and multiple bite marks. However, Huata's prompt call to the child's mother to seek help was seen as a mitigating factor. The court also applied Section 9A of the Sentencing Act 2002, which mandates consideration of violence against a child as an aggravating factor. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court set a starting point of ten years’ imprisonment, adjusted for Huata’s youth and good character, resulting in a final sentence of seven and a half years for manslaughter and two and a half years for injuring with intent, to be served concurrently.

The court's final orders were that Huata be sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and two and a half years’ imprisonment for injuring with intent, to be served concurrently.

Orders