R v Lakakula - [2019] NZHC 2615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-272

[2019] NZHC 2615

THE QUEEN

v

TRAVIS LAVAKULA

Hearing: 15 October 2019

Appearances:

L P Radich for the Crown

A J Holland for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 October 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

R v LAVAKULA [2019] NZHC 2615 [15 October 2019]

[1] Travis Lavakula, you appear for sentence today on a large number of charges. First you are here for a series of offences committed against the primary victim, who is here in court today. These occurred in January 2018. The charges for which you are being sentenced are:

(a)two charges of male assaults female;1

(b)five charges of injuring with intent to injure;2

(c)one charge of wounding with reckless disregard;3

(d)two charges of assault with intent to injure; and4

(e)two charges of assault with a weapon.5

Secondly, you are being sentenced for:

(a)one charge of possession of methamphetamine; and6

(b)one charge of possession of ammunition.7

[3] Thirdly, you have also pleaded guilty to a number of other charges for offences committed in Otahuhu in February 2018 being:

(a)one charge of male assaults female;8

(b)one charge of reckless driving;9

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 189(2): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 188(2): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 193: maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 202C: maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a): maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment.
7      Arms Act 1983, s 45: maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b): maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.
9      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(a): maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment/$4,500 fine.

(c)one charge of failing to stop; and10

(d)one charge of aggravated assault.11

Factual background

The January offending

[4] The January 2018 offending saw you subject the primary victim to what can only be described as a campaign of horrific violence over a three-day period when it appears you were high on methamphetamine:

(a)on 23 January you threatened to burn her face and proceeded to singe her eyebrows with a barbeque lighter;12

(b)you threatened to pour boiling water on her, you taped her mouth shut and then you poured hot water on her vagina;13

(c)you tied a necktie around her neck and pulled it with sufficient force that the primary victim lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness you then kicked her twice to the side of her body, slapped her in the face, abused her, pulled her hair and hit her head on the ground;14

(d)you made her lie face down on a bed, you then proceeded to tie a bathrobe strap around her neck, placed pillows over her head, and then sitting on the pillow, preventing her from breathing, while pushing her body with force rendering her unable to walk and making her crawl around the house;15

10 Section 52A: maximum…

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 Lakakula

Details

AGLC: R v Lakakula [2019] NZHC 2615
Case: [2019] NZHC 2615
Decision Date: 15 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Travis Lavakula appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry for sentencing on multiple charges arising from violent offending in January and February 2018, as well as drug and ammunition possession. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the gravity of the offending, took into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, and provided appropriate deterrence and protection for the community. The court meticulously considered the severity of the offending, which included a campaign of violent assaults, threats, and other harmful actions against multiple victims, alongside drug possession and reckless driving. The court applied the Sentencing Act 2002 to balance the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. After evaluating various sentencing approaches proposed by both counsel and considering personal mitigating factors, the court determined a starting point of 11 years and 2 months of imprisonment, adjusted for personal circumstances and a guilty plea discount, resulting in a final sentence of 7 years and 7 months of imprisonment, with a minimum of 2 years and 9 months without parole for the most serious offence. Additionally, the court imposed a 12-month disqualification from driving and issued a protection order for the primary victim. The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and behavioral change to avoid future severe consequences under the strikes regime.

Orders