R v Manutui - [2015] NZHC 2880

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ILLNESSES OF THE CO-DEFENDANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-092-010726 [2015] NZHC 2880

THE QUEEN

v

FAATIGA JOE MANUTUI

Hearing: 19 November 2015

Appearances:

C Piho for the Crown
N Tupou for the Defendant

Sentencing:

19 November 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Manukau
N T Tupou, Auckland
Sinisa Law Limited, Auckland

R v MANUTUI [2015] NZHC 2880 [19 November 2015]

Summary

[1] Mr Manutui, you appear for sentence as a party to one count of kidnapping.1

You are to be sentenced today on the basis of a sentence indication which I gave on

7 October this year.2

Facts

[2] As I have canvassed the facts extensively in your sentence indication, I will not go through them all today. That indication will be annexed to these notes in any event. It suffices to say that in September 2014, your partner had convinced you that she was pregnant, due in part to mental illnesses on her part. On 25 September 2014, after entering the hospital on the supposed due date, you were informed by a nurse, in front of your partner, that she was not pregnant.

[3] You left your partner at the hospital while the nurse was supposedly running a “second check” on your partner’s name. Around 20 minutes later, your partner called you to say she had given birth and you returned to collect her and the baby girl she had with her. Despite a number of warning signs and inconsistencies in your partner’s story, you took her and the baby home. You made no efforts to contact the hospital or the Police.

[4] The Police arrived at your house in the early hours of the following morning and it became evident that your partner had kidnapped the baby girl from the maternity ward. Luckily, the baby was returned unharmed.

Personal circumstances

[5] Mr Manutui, you are a 32 year old Samoan man, with one child to a previous partner. You have only one minor prior conviction for breaching the Civil Aviation Act. The pre-sentence report assesses you as being at a low risk of causing harm to
the community, and at a low-risk of reoffending.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 209(b) and 66(1).

[6] The same report notes that you expressed deep remorse for the child’s family, recognising that they were also victims. You recognised the stress, worry and anger the family must have suffered, and expressed a desire to apologise to them and to reassure them that their child was well taken care of while she was with you. You also admit that you were gullible and that you did not act on your instincts. You have certainly, in that respect, suffered a large punishment for not doing so. A conviction for kidnapping is very serious, and you now have a first strike under our three strikes warning system. Any future offending by you will be treated very harshly indeed.

[7] However, you…

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 Manutui

Details

AGLC: R v Manutui [2015] NZHC 2880
Case: [2015] NZHC 2880
Decision Date: 19 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Faatiga Joe Manutui was sentenced for his involvement in the kidnapping of a five-day-old baby girl from Middlemore Hospital. The baby's mother, Ms Marsh, who was suffering from delusions of pregnancy, took the child, and Mr Manutui, who believed his partner was pregnant, facilitated the kidnapping by taking the baby and mother home. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, accountability, and the least restrictive outcome. Given Mr Manutui's minimal active role, his limited criminal history, and his genuine remorse, the court decided that a community-based sentence was appropriate. The court imposed a sentence of three months of community detention, a curfew, and 250 hours of community work to hold Mr Manutui accountable and to promote a sense of responsibility for his actions.

The court emphasized that the purposes of sentencing could be met without imprisonment, considering Mr Manutui's limited culpability and the lack of planning or malicious intent in his actions. The sentence was designed to reflect the harm caused to the baby's family while also facilitating Mr Manutui's continued engagement with the community and promoting his understanding of the impact of his actions. The court also noted that Mr Manutui's behaviour was driven by misplaced trust rather than malicious intent, and that there was little likelihood of reoffending. The final orders included a prohibition on publishing the medical and psychological illnesses of the co-defendant, Loni Marsh.

Orders