R v Leota - [2013] NZHC 2857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-090-004304

CRI-2011-004-000117 [2013] NZHC 2857

THE QUEEN

v

PAKA JUNIOR LEOTA

Charges: Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; Wounding with intent to injure

Counsel:

MR Walker and MJ Hammer for Crown
NG Cooke for Prisoner

Sentenced:

29 October 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Nigel Cooke (Auckland) for Prisoner

R v LEOTA [2013] NZHC 2857 [29 October 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Leota, you appear for sentence today on two charges. On 20 August

2010, you wounded Mr Talaia with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. On

12 March 2013, you pleaded guilty to that charge. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. On 19 April 2011, you wounded a prison officer with intent to injure him. You were found guilty by a jury of that offence on
14 February 2013. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

[2] There is a procedure which I have to go through now in describing how I get to the sentences I will impose on you. If I were just talking to you then I would be shorter and I would explain myself in more direct language. But I am also delivering this sentence so that the lawyers understand the legal reasons, so it will take a bit longer than I otherwise would like.

Facts

Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

[3] At approximately 10:30 pm on 20 August 2010, you approached Mr Talaia, who was working in City Road in Auckland CBD as a minder of prostitutes. You attacked him. You struck Mr Talaia a number of times in the face. You kicked him in the legs. Mr Talaia grabbed you in a hug in an attempt to defend himself and you both fell to the ground. You pulled out a metal object, probably a screwdriver, and stabbed Mr Talaia in the head, causing a puncture wound to his temple and he began to bleed a lot. You continued to punch Mr Talaia about the head in a prolonged and very violent attack. During the attack you demanded payment of $300.

[4] There was somebody else present. That person knew Mr Talaia and pleaded with you to cease the attack and even offered to pay the money. He managed to separate you and Mr Talaia very briefly. But you grabbed Mr Talaia again and continued your attack. Mr Talaia lost about a litre of blood during the struggle, lost his strength and fell to the ground.

[5] You left the area and changed out of your clothes. You were found a few streets away from City Road about two hours later.

[6] Mr Talaia was taken to hospital. He had the puncture wound to his temple, his skull was fractured, and he suffered a brain bleed. He required surgery to remove a bone fragment and to clean out the blood which was overlying his brain and the bruising within the…

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 [2013] NZHC 2857
Case: [2013] NZHC 2857
Decision Date: 29 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved PAKA JUNIOR LEOTA, who was sentenced on two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent to injure. The first offence involved an attack on Mr Talaia, which included the use of a screwdriver and caused serious injuries, while the second offence involved an attack on a prison officer, Mr Craig, which resulted in a broken jaw. The court considered various factors, including the defendant's criminal history, the nature of the offences, and the impact on the victims. The court set a starting point for each charge, considering the severity of the offences and the defendant's history of violence. The court also took into account the defendant's personal circumstances and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court decided on a sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months, and did not impose a sentence of preventive detention. The court emphasised the importance of holding the defendant accountable for their actions, promoting a sense of responsibility, and protecting the community. The court also considered the need for rehabilitation and reintegration of the defendant into society. The court's decision reflected a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders