R v Maa - [2021] NZHC 1855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-3127

[2021] NZHC 1855

THE QUEEN

v

JIANN-HWA MAA

Hearing: 10 June 2021

Appearances:

R McCoubrey and S Murphy for the Crown K-A Stoikoff and R Smith for the Defendant

Judgment:

22 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 July 2021at 3:00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Solicitors:
Mr R McCoubrey and Ms S Murphy, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Ms K-A Stoikoff and Ms R Smith, Public Defence Service, Auckland

R v MAA [2021] NZHC 1855 [22 July 2021]

[1] On 2 June 2021, Mr Maa pleaded guilty to a charge of murder of Mr Zion Gutnik at Epsom on 9 March 2020.

[2] Mr Maa accepted a summary of facts but maintains that he did not intend to kill Mr Gutnik, but rather meant to cause him bodily injury that he knew was likely to cause death, and was reckless as to whether death ensued. That is, Mr Maa was pleading guilty to murder on the basis of s 167(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, rather than s 167(a). While Mr McCoubrey for the Crown suggested the issue may be more a matter of inference and submission than true disputed fact, Ms Stoikoff for Mr Maa sought a disputed facts hearing on the basis that intention is a disputed fact. Mr McCoubrey did not oppose and I accepted that one should take place.

Agreed facts

[3] 574 Manukau Road, Epsom is well-established as a club used by sex workers to meet and entertain their clients. Several managers organise the daily business on behalf of the proprietor, Ms Li. Those managers work a daytime shift from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm or an evening shift from 7:00 pm, typically ending around 3:00 am the following morning. Mr Maa and Mr Gutnik were two of the managers. Mr Maa resided onsite in a sleep-out adjacent to the main building one or two nights a week, while Mr Gutnik travelled to work his shifts from his apartment in central Auckland. Mr Maa typically worked during the daytime while Mr Gutnik worked during the evenings. The relationship between Mr Maa and Mr Gutnik was a strained one and on at least one occasion in December 2019 deteriorated to a physical altercation between the pair.

[4] At 12:30 am on 10 March 2020, Police were called to 574 Manukau Road. A quantity of blood had been located on a wall in the lounge area and Mr Maa and Mr Gutnik, who were rostered to work the shifts that day, were both missing. Mr Maa was working the day shift and Mr Gutnik was working the night shift.

[5] During a subsequent Police search looking for the missing managers, entry was forced to the sleep-out. The door was jammed, but not locked. Upon entering the sleep-out, Mr Gutnik’s body was discovered. His head and upper torso had…

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 Maa

Details

AGLC: R v Maa [2021] NZHC 1855
Case: [2021] NZHC 1855
Decision Date: 22 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Jiann-Hwa Maa, the defendant pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr Zion Gutnik but maintained that he did not intend to kill him. The court was required to decide whether the defendant intended to kill Mr Gutnik or meant to cause him bodily injury that he knew was likely to cause death, and was reckless as to whether death ensued. The court considered the evidence presented, including the pathology evidence and the defendant's actions after the assault. The court found that the defendant's evidence about the number of blows was not accepted and that the defendant struck Mr Gutnik's head at least 10 times. However, the court could not be sure that the defendant intended to kill Mr Gutnik. The court found that the Crown had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill Mr Gutnik.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court considered the pathology evidence and the defendant's actions after the assault, but ultimately found that the intention to kill was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the defendant's actions after the assault did not necessarily indicate his intention at the time of the assault. The court also considered the possibility that the blow was so hard that Mr Gutnik's head moved vigorously despite bracing, which would suggest that the defendant did not intend to kill Mr Gutnik.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the judgment, but it is likely that the court sentenced the defendant for murder based on the guilty plea. The court may have considered the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to sentencing, as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court may have also considered the minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years in certain circumstances, as provided for in the Act. The specific sentence imposed by the court is not known.

Orders