R v Leota - [2017] NZHC 2184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2015-020-2122 [2017] NZHC 2184

THE QUEEN

v

PAKA JUNIOR LEOTA

Appearances:
S B Manning for Crown

J S Jefferson for Defendant

Sentenced:

7 September 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF CLARK J

Introduction

[1] Mr Leota you appear for sentencing this morning having been found guilty by a jury on one charge of causing grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.1 The main issue for me is whether a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed.

[2] Before addressing that point I will set out the background to the offending and the impact on your victim Jason Poi. I will then assess what is an appropriate starting point for your sentence, whether there should be any adjustments up or down from that starting point and finally I will impose sentence.

[3] You may remain seated until I sentence you.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).

R v LEOTA [2017] NZHC 2184 [7 September 2017]

[4] First, I wish to acknowledge Te Aroha Mohi’s presence. Ms Mohi is Mr Poi’s partner and the mother of their children and she is in Court today along with members of her family.

Background

[5] Mr Leota you and your co-offender, Mr Samoa, inflicted a violent beating on Mr Poi because of a failed plan to bring drugs into the Hawkes Bay Regional Prison on the Family Day being held in March 2015 by the prisoners of your unit. The victim was taken into your cell. You were alone with him for 12 seconds before Mr Samoa entered. The evidence at trial was that during those 12 seconds thumping sounds consistent with a beating could be heard coming from the cell.

[6] Mr Poi’s injuries were so serious that, but for the intervention of another prisoner and medical professionals it is likely he would have died. On arrival at the Emergency Department Mr Poi was deeply unconscious with obstructed breathing due to his facial injuries. The formal statement of the head of intensive care at Hawkes Bay Hospital is detailed and lengthy. It is enough for me to say that Mr Poi suffered severe and permanent brain injury, multiple fractures to the side of his face, his jaw, nose, cheek and eye socket.

Victim impact statement

[7] Te Aroha Mohi, Jason Poi’s partner and mother of their children has made a statement that was eloquent and moving. She likens the effect of the injuries on Mr Poi to the effects on the family — shattered, broken and fractured. Ms Mohi is left alone to witness the pain and distress of the children being robbed of their father while she deals with the loss of someone precious to her. She describes a lonely, dark and frightful journey.

[8] Mr Poi’s older sister Rohario speaks in her statement of the actual physical pain she suffers and the guilt she feels because she asked her brother to…

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 Leota

Details

AGLC: R v Leota [2017] NZHC 2184
Case: [2017] NZHC 2184
Decision Date: 7 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leota involved PAKA JUNIOR LEOTA, who was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years' imprisonment. The main issue for the court was whether a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed. The court considered the background of the offending, the impact on the victim, and the appropriate starting point for the sentence, as well as any adjustments that should be made. The court concluded that a sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the community from the significant and ongoing risk posed by the offender.

The court noted that the offender had a lengthy history of violent offending and that the attack on the victim was brutal and resulted in severe and permanent injuries. The court also considered the offender's recent history of violent offending and the fact that the attack occurred while the offender was in prison serving sentences for previous violent offences. The court found that an uplift of twelve months' imprisonment was appropriate to reflect the offender's violent history. The court also noted that the offender had not shown any mitigating factors and had denied any involvement in the assault.

The court considered whether a sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the community from the offender's significant and ongoing risk. The court noted that the offender had a pattern of serious offending, the seriousness of the harm caused by the offending, and the information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future. The court also considered the absence or failure of efforts by the offender to address the cause of their offending. The court found that a sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the community and ordered a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years and eight months.

The court sentenced the offender to preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years and eight months. The court urged the offender to take advantage of the programmes that had been recommended by the professional assessors so that they may work towards their earliest possible release.

Orders