Legal Research
Cases
R v Larson

R v Larson

Case [2020] NZHC 237 21 February 2020

Sentencing

Jurisdiction

Remorse

Cultural Considerations

Guilty Plea

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-2019-004-3883

[2020] NZHC 237

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH LARSON

Hearing: 21 February 2020

Appearances:

D Johnstone and L Deane for the Crown E Priest for the Defendant

Sentence:

21 February 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Law, Auckland Counsel: E Priest, Auckland

R v LARSON [2020] NZHC 237 [21 February 2020]

Introduction

[1] Joseph Antonio Halaholo Larson, you appear for sentencing at the age of 21 having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.1 The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.2

[1]This follows a sentencing indication given by me on 6 November 2019.

Facts

[2] I have already addressed the facts of your offending and a starting point for the offending in detail in my earlier sentencing indication. I will not repeat that detail here. My sentence indication will be attached to these remarks and will form part of them.

[3] It is sufficient to say, for present purposes, that after some hours spent drinking and socialising in central Auckland, you stopped the vehicle driven by Reuben Telea by walking out onto Queen Street. You attempted to punch Jerico Telea, Reuben’s brother who had been travelling as a passenger in the car. He then attempted to punch you but missed. You then punched Jerico twice in the face. The force of the second punch rendered him unconscious immediately and he fell backwards hitting his head on the concrete. Efforts to assist Jerico caused him to hit his head on the concrete a second time. Jerico suffered fatal head and brain injuries and did not regain consciousness. On 22 April 2019, he was declared brain dead and his life support was turned off.

Approach to sentencing

[4] Mr Larson, sentencing involves three steps. First, I must set a starting point which reflects the gravity of your offending. Secondly, adjustments are made for personal aggravating and mitigating factors. Finally, there is a discount for your guilty plea.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171.
2 Section 177.

[5] In sentencing you today, I must take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as contained in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. There are several principles I consider particularly relevant to your offending. They are to denounce your conduct, to deter you and others from using violence and to hold you accountable for the harm done to Jerico and his family. Your offending is serious, as the maximum penalty demonstrates. Jerico has tragically lost his life in circumstances that were entirely avoidable and through your conduct. You have heard the words of Jerico’s eldest sister, Anita, read out in Court this morning. You have heard the loss his family has suffered, the effect on his elderly parents, especially his mother, and the financial and emotional toll this has had on their family.

[6] Your family has experienced their grief at the ifoga, from which you were absent, but I also know…

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 Larson

Details

AGLC: R v Larson [2020] NZHC 237
Case: [2020] NZHC 237
Decision Date: 21 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Antonio Halaholo Larson, aged 21, appeared for sentencing in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland, having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The court, presided over by Gordon J, considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, focusing on denouncing Larson's conduct, deterring violence, and holding him accountable for the harm caused to Jerico Telea and his family. After assessing the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of Larson, including his youth, previous good character, and participation in restorative justice, the court determined a starting point of four years' imprisonment. Applying discounts for youth, remorse, restorative justice, and time spent on bail, the court arrived at a final sentence of two years' imprisonment, which could be served under home detention conditions for 12 months.

The court recognised the tragic loss of Jerico Telea's life and the devastating impact on his family. Larson's remorse and participation in the restorative justice process, along with his family's support, were considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also took into account Larson's youth, previous good character, and the cultural context of his offending. The final sentence aimed to hold Larson accountable for his actions, provide for his rehabilitation, and offer an opportunity for him to address the role of violence and alcohol in his life.

Orders