R v Mataafi - [2016] NZHC 3076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-4751 [2016] NZHC 3076

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES FALETOGIA MATAAFI

Hearing: 15 December 2016

Counsel:

E J McCaughan for the Crown
R M Mansfield and STL Teppett for Mr Mataafi

Sentence:

15 December 2016

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr E J McCaughan, Kayes Fletcher Walker, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Manukau
Mr R M Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland

R v MATAAFI [2016] NZHC 3076 [15 December 2016]

[1] Mr Mataafi, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.

[2] I advised you last week, on the sentence indication, that if you pleaded guilty I would discharge you without conviction. What I said then forms part of this decision, and I will attach a copy of my notes to this decision.

[3] To explain my decision, I need to describe what happened. I know this will be hard for you, and your wife and your children, and other members of your family. But, as I am sure you will understand, it is important that others understand.

[4] On Christmas Day, 2014, your youngest child, Imogen, drowned in an inflatable pool. She was 17 months old.

[5] The pool was a gift to your four children from your brother Jonathan. The pool was given to your children at a relation’s home, a week or so before Christmas, when the extended family gathered to exchange gifts.

[6] You took the pool back to your home which you share with your partner Sina, your four children, and Sina’s parents – her father is sitting next to you.1 Also staying there over the Christmas period, from Australia, were Sina’s sister, her 2 year old daughter, and a 14 year old cousin.

[7] All of you saw the pool as a gift not just for your children, but as an activity the combined families could enjoy over the Christmas and New Year period. Adults as well as the children were excited by the pool.

[8] You took the pool home in its box. You did not know how to set it up. Other family members did this. It was erected in the back yard. When it was inflated the top was 67 centimetres above the ground, as measured by, I think, a police officer. It
was filled with water to a depth of about 49 centimetres.

1 Mr Mataafi’s father-in-law was also charged with manslaughter. The Crown offered no evidence against him and the charge was dismissed.

[9] A child-proof gate was put over the stairs which went from the deck at the back of the house into the yard. This was done to prevent small children from going out of the house into the backyard without supervision.

[10] You say, and I accept, that you did not think that the law required a temporary pool, like this one, to be fenced. And this was a pool that cost $200, I think from The Warehouse. You accept that the box the pool came in…

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 Mataafi

Details

AGLC: R v Mataafi [2016] NZHC 3076
Case: [2016] NZHC 3076
Decision Date: 15 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Mataafi was charged with manslaughter after his daughter, Imogen, drowned in an inflatable pool on Christmas Day in 2014. The court considered the legal issues surrounding the manslaughter charge, which alleged that Mataafi had been responsible for the erection of the pool and, in the absence of precaution or care, the pool could endanger human life. The court considered the Crown's contentions that there should have been more rigorous supervision of Imogen and the other small children, or the water should have been emptied to a safe level, or a cover should have been used, or some sort of fencing should have been erected - and perhaps a combination of some of those things. The Crown also submitted that, because there was no fencing around the pool, it was paramount that adult supervision occurred whenever the children were using the back lawn, not just when the children were in the pool.

The court exercised its discretion to discharge Mataafi without conviction under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court considered the gravity of the offence and Mataafi's personal circumstances, including his achievements in life, his adversities, and the impact of the tragedy on his family. The court found that the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence and that a discharge without conviction was the appropriate outcome.

The court ordered that Mataafi be discharged without conviction.

Orders