Legal Research
Cases
R v Matahaere

R v Matahaere

Case [2024] NZHC 2053 24 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF PART OF EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-003574

[2024] NZHC 2053

THE KING

v

HEATH JAMES MATAHAERE MIGUEL TUIALA MOAGUTUULI MARCUS FAGAALE MOAGUTUULI

JUNIOR FAAIVA

Hearing: 24 July 2024

Appearances:

M G McClenaghan and A M Harvey for Crown T D Clee (via VMR) for Defendant Matahaere

A J Bailey and R J T George for Defendant Miguel Moagutuuli K C Cook (via VMR) for Defendant Marcus Moagutuuli

D J Matthews for Defendant Faaiva

Judgment:

24 July 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v MATAHAERE [2024] NZHC 2053 [24 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Heath James Matehaere, Miguel Tuiala Moagutuuli, Marcus Fagaale Moagutuuli and Junior Faaiva, you appear for sentencing, each of you have pleaded guilty, or in your case, Mr Matehaere, have been found guilty, of the following charges:

(a)causing grievous bodily harm to with intent to injure;1

(b)injuring with intent to injure;2 and

(c)assault with intent to injure.3

[2] Miguel and Marcus Moagutuuli and Junior Faaiva, you are also to be sentenced on a related charge of common assault,4 and Miguel, you are to be sentenced for charges of unlawful possession of ammunition,5 unlawful possession of firearm parts,6 and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.7

[3] Junior Faaiva, you are also facing charges of possession of cannabis and utensils. The Crown gave notice of an intention not to offer evidence to support those charges and you are discharged in relation to them if that order has not already been made.

Facts of offending

[4] The factual basis upon which all four of you are to be sentenced is set out in an agreed summary of facts. Although in relation to you Mr Matehaere, I am entitled to fix sentence in reliance on the evidence I heard at your trial. But having sat through the trial, I am quite satisfied the evidence adduced by the Crown at trial does in fact reflect the evidence as was set out in the agreed summary.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2): maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2): maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 193: maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 196: maximum penalty one year’ imprisonment.
5      Arms Act 1983, s 22B: maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
6      Arms Act 1983, s 22A: maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
7      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178: maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

[5] That summary does not, other than in relation to some acts of Mr Matehaere, identify what each you did in the lead up to and during the assaults. Rather, it refers to the acts of “the defendants”. That reference includes a reference…

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 Matahaere

Details

AGLC: R v Matahaere [2024] NZHC 2053
Case: [2024] NZHC 2053
Decision Date: 24 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Matahaere, the defendants, Heath James Matahaere, Miguel Tuiala Moagutuuli, Marcus Fagaale Moagutuuli, and Junior Faaiva, were convicted of multiple charges including causing grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent, and assault with intent to injure. The defendants were also charged with other offenses related to firearms and ammunition. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for each defendant, taking into account the nature and severity of the offenses, the defendants' criminal histories, and personal circumstances that may mitigate the sentencing.

The court meticulously assessed aggravating factors such as the extreme violence of the assaults, the vulnerability of the victims, and the gang-related overtones of the crime. It also considered mitigating factors like the defendants' personal backgrounds, their expressions of remorse, and their rehabilitative prospects. Each defendant's background was marked by significant socio-economic deprivation, exposure to violence, and gang involvement, which the court recognized as contributing to their offending behavior. The court allowed deductions for these personal circumstances and for the time each defendant had spent on bail.

After weighing all the factors, the court imposed concurrent sentences for each defendant, recognizing their potential for rehabilitation and their expressed commitment to leaving their gang lifestyles behind. The court emphasized the importance of holding the defendants accountable for their actions while also encouraging their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders