R v Kala'Uta - [2016] NZHC 1526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-092-6330 [2016] NZHC 1526

THE QUEEN

v

HINGANO ANAMANU KALAʼUTA

Hearing: 5 July 2016

Appearances:

N E Walker for Crown
N T Tupou for Defendant

Judgment:

5 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Crown Solicitor, Manukau
Sinisa Law Limited, Auckland

Counsel: N T Tupou, Auckland

R v KALAʼUTA [2016] NZHC 1526 [5 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Kala’uta, you are for sentence on one charge of manslaughter and four charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury.1

[2] In sentencing you today I have been greatly assisted by the written and oral submissions from your counsel, Mr Tupou, and from Ms Walker for the Crown.

[3] The charges arise from a single incident in the early hours of 1 January 2015.

[4] You had been out drinking with friends and family that night – New Year’s Eve. There were seven of you in the car which, as I understand it, had several rows of seats. Sensibly, the group had agreed that Mr Hafeez would act as the sober driver and so he was driving at the start of the trip home from town.

[5] At some point you decided that you should drive and insisted on doing so, to the point where you threatened Mr Hafeez verbally and physically, demanding that he pull over. The other passengers were extremely unhappy about this, and said as much, because you had been drinking. Nonetheless, and it is no criticism of him, Mr Hafeez pulled over and you took over the driving.

[6] From that point, events deteriorated. You and your now wife, Ms Naufahu, were arguing. She got into the front seat and the argument continued. Matters were not helped by the fact that she started hitting you and later turned on the windscreen wipers and indicators while you were driving.

[7] The others in the car – and other motorists for that matter – considered your driving to be erratic and aggressive and you were speeding – up to 160km/h. You ignored your passengers when they yelled at you to stop.

[8] The accident occurred at about 6.20 am as you approached the East Tamaki off-ramp. You tried to swerve around a car in front of you, lost control, the car spun and then slammed into the steel barrier at the side of the motorway. One passenger
was thrown out of the car at that point and suffered moderate injuries.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a) and 171 and Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(1)(b).

[9] The force of that collision sent the car across the southbound lanes of the motorway. Ms Taimani was thrown out of the car and died at the scene as a result of injuries to her head and chest. The four other charges relate to four of your other passengers who suffered injury – your wife, Ms Naufahu; your cousin, Mr Makisi; Ms Moala; and Mr Kaivelata. Also, Mr Hafeez…

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 Kala'Uta

Details

AGLC: R v Kala'Uta [2016] NZHC 1526
Case: [2016] NZHC 1526
Decision Date: 5 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of The Queen v Hingano Anamanu Kala'Uta. The defendant was convicted on one charge of manslaughter and four charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury. The case involved a tragic incident where the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, took over the driving of a car from a designated sober driver. This led to a high-speed, aggressive drive that ended in a fatal car accident. The defendant's blood alcohol level was significantly over the legal limit, and his driving caused severe injuries to several passengers, one of whom died.

The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the severity of the crimes, the defendant's remorse, and his efforts to rehabilitate himself. The sentencing was guided by the principles set out in Gacitua v R and other relevant cases. The judge considered factors that increased the culpability of the defendant's actions, such as driving at excessive speeds, ignoring warnings from passengers, and driving aggressively while over the legal alcohol limit. Additionally, the judge assessed mitigating factors, including the defendant's genuine remorse, his participation in restorative justice processes, and the significant efforts he made to raise money for reparation.

The court decided that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was six years of imprisonment. However, due to the mitigating factors, the sentence was reduced by up to 40 percent. The defendant was sentenced to four years in prison for the manslaughter charge and one year for each of the four charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury, all to be served concurrently. The defendant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's license for four years following his release from prison. Furthermore, the court ordered the defendant to pay $15,000 to the family of the deceased and $1,250 to each of the other injured passengers.

Orders