Legal Research
Cases
R v Moananui

R v Moananui

Case [2021] NZHC 1723 12 July 2021

Breach of Contract

Breach of Trust

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-054-3419

[2021] NZHC 1723

THE QUEEN

v

QUENTIN JOSEPH MOANANUI JEREMIAH SUA MARIOTA SUA

Hearing: 9 July 2021

Counsel:

D R Davies and J J Harvey for the Crown

Q Moananui self-represented and P H Surridge as amicus curiae C Tennet and M Jaquiery for Mr J Sua

L P F Lafferty and S Jefferson for Mr M Sua

Sentencing Notes:

12 July 2021

SENTENCING OF CULL J

[1] Jeremiah Su’a, Mariota Su’a and Quentin Moananui, I am about to sentence each of you. While I read the sentencing you may sit down, and I will ask you to stand again at the end when I formally sentence you.1

[2] A jury has found each of you guilty of Codi Wilkinson’s manslaughter,2 wounding Kyle Rowe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,3 and participation in

1      This is a record of the oral sentencing delivered in open court. There is a deletion of two sentences containing personal information of one of the defendants at the request of his Counsel. There has been some punctuation inserted for sense and grammar, and/or deletion of repetitious words.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 171, 177 and 66(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Section 188; maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v SUA [2021] NZHC 1723 [12 July 2021]

an organised criminal group.4 Mr Moananui, you have also been found guilty of two charges of kidnapping.5

[3] To avoid confusion as two of you share the same last name, I will refer to all of you by your first names and I do so out of wanting to save confusion, not out of disrespect.

[4] Before I start, I remind the courtroom that there is a final suppression order in place in respect of the other persons who were initially charged and their names are suppressed, so I want to bring that to everybody’s attention at the back of the Court.

[5]In sentencing the three of you, I shall:

(a)set out the background to the offending;

(b)discuss the impact of your offending on the victim’s family (which you actually have heard today);

(c)assess the appropriate starting point for your sentence;

(d)assess any aggravating and mitigating factors that adjust the sentence from the starting point;

(e)consider the appropriateness of imposing a minimum period of imprisonment; and

(f)issue a stage 1 warning for the serious violent offences.

The facts

[6]I deal first with the facts.

4 Section 98A; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
5 Section 209; maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

[7] Each of you has disputed, in your own ways, the facts as they apply to each of you. It is for the Crown to prove any aggravating facts beyond reasonable doubt. As I was the trial Judge, I am able to make decisions about those matters.6 In sentencing you, I must accept as proven, the facts that are essential to the convictions on which 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 Moananui

Details

AGLC: R v Moananui [2021] NZHC 1723
Case: [2021] NZHC 1723
Decision Date: 12 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Moananui involved three defendants, Jeremiah Su’a, Mariota Su’a, and Quentin Moananui, who were found guilty of Codi Wilkinson’s manslaughter, wounding Kyle Rowe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and participation in an organised criminal group. The defendants were associated with the Mongrel Mob Aotearoa and were involved in a violent attack on Codi and Kyle, who were junior members of the same gang. The court heard victim impact statements from Codi’s family, which highlighted the devastating effects of the attack on them. In sentencing the defendants, the court considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, including holding the defendants accountable, denouncing their conduct, and protecting the community.

The court determined that the defendants' offending fell into band three of the Taueki guidelines, which suggested a starting point between nine- and 14-years' imprisonment. The court considered various aggravating factors, including premeditation, use of weapons, extreme violence, and gang warfare. The court also considered personal mitigating factors, such as socio-economic deprivation and abusive upbringings, which led the defendants to seek solace in the gang world.

The court imposed a starting point of 15 years for Jeremiah, 12 years for Mariota, and 12 years for Quentin. The court uplifted the starting points for the wounding charges and imposed concurrent sentences for the kidnapping charges. The court also imposed a 15 per cent discount for each defendant based on Section 27 factors, such as socio-economic deprivation and early exposure to violence. The court did not impose minimum periods of imprisonment, as it believed that the purposes of accountability, denunciation, and deterrence had already been addressed in the sentences.

Finally, the court issued a stage 1 warning under the Three Strikes Law, which meant that if the defendants were convicted of any further serious violent offence, they would receive a second strike, and any sentence of imprisonment imposed would be served without parole or early release. If they were convicted of a further serious violent offence after that, they would receive a third strike, and the court would have to impose the maximum penalty for the offence, to be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust.

Orders