R v Ikamanu - [2012] NZHC 2755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-044-002097 [2012] NZHC 2755

THE QUEEN

v

KEFU IKAMANU

Charges: Manslaughter x1
Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do such harm x1

Plea: Not Guilty

Appearances: P Hamlin for Crown
S Lance for Prisoner

Sentenced: 19 October 2012
Manslaughter – 6 years, 9 months’ imprisonment;
Grievous bodily harm – 1 year, 6 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: S Lance, Auckland

R V IKAMANU HC AK CRI-2010-044-002097 [19 October 2012]

[1] Kefu Ikamanu, you are for sentence having been found guilty by a jury following trial on one count of manslaughter and one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do such harm. Manslaughter carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The victim was your daughter Seini. She was almost three years old at the time.

[2] As you have been convicted of serious violent offences you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am required to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written warning. I ask the interpreter to assist you with that written warning as well.

[3] The formal warning is this. 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.

[4] 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. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

Facts

[5] The facts as I find them to be are important for the purposes of assessing your culpability and the appropriate sentence in this case. In April 2007 Seini was born in New Zealand to you and your wife Sela. In September that year when she was five months old Seini went to live in Tonga with her extended family. You and Sela remained in New Zealand. On 29 January 2010 Seini returned to New Zealand to live with you. You were the primary caregiver for both Seini and her 18 month old brother while Sela worked extended hours at a home for the disabled.

[6] On 24 March 2010 Sela left for work just before 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Later, in the early evening, Seini and her brother were playing noisily and running around. You asked them to stop. Seini ignored your request and just looked at you.

She continued to run around. You became angry with her. You were sitting in a chair in front of the television. You reached out to your right from that chair, grabbed Seini’s arm, pulled her towards you and then swung her across in front of you before letting her go. She was propelled into the wall. As a result of this…

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 Ikamanu

Details

AGLC: R v Ikamanu [2012] NZHC 2755
Case: [2012] NZHC 2755
Decision Date: 19 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Kefu Ikamanu involves the sentencing of the defendant who was found guilty of manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The victim, Seini, was the defendant's daughter who died as a result of injuries inflicted by him. The defendant pled not guilty to both charges. The legal issues in this case include determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the culpability of the defendant, and whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed.

The court considered the gravity of the defendant's actions, the circumstances leading to the incident, and the defendant's personal background. The court found the defendant's actions to be a one-off incident of violence driven by frustration, and that he did not foresee the risk of death. The court determined an eight-year starting point for the manslaughter charge, and a one-year, six-month uplift for the grievous bodily harm charge, resulting in a starting point of nine years, six months. The court also considered the defendant's early acceptance of responsibility and offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, which led to a 20% reduction in the sentence. The final sentence imposed is six years, nine months' imprisonment for manslaughter and one year, six months' imprisonment for grievous bodily harm, to be served concurrently.

The court decided not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, as the standard non-parole period was deemed sufficient to address the relevant purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. The defendant is also subject to the three strikes law, which means that if he is convicted of another serious violent offence, he will serve the sentence without parole or early release.

Orders