Legal Research
Cases
R v Ngamoki

R v Ngamoki

Case [2021] NZHC 2918 29 October 2021

Rehabilitation Prospects

Aggravating Factors

Mitigating Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-044-000915

[2021] NZHC 2918

THE QUEEN

v

RIKI WIREMU NGAMOKI PAUL SIMON TULILOA

Hearing: 29 October 2021 (via VMR)

Appearances:

David Wiseman for the Crown Anoushka Bloem for Riki Ngamoki Gary Gotlieb for Paul Tuliloa

Sentence:

29 October 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MOORE J

R v NGAMOKI & ANOR [2021] NZHC 2918 [29 October 2021]

Introduction

[1] Riki Ngamoki and Paul Tuliloa appear for sentence having each pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure.1

[2]Mr Ngamoki is also being sentenced for an assault on a prison officer.2

Procedural background

[3] Both defendants are, and at all material times were, inmates at Auckland’s maximum security prison at Paremoremo.

[4] Mr Ngamoki’s and Mr Tuliloa’s offending relates to the same victim, a fellow inmate, Mr Cesar Su’a.

[5] The circumstances in which the offending occurred involved a second victim, Mr Lee, who was fatally injured, and two other offenders, Mr Lisiate and Mr Telefoni.

[6] Messrs Lisiate, Telefoni, Ngamoki and Tuliloa were jointly charged with the murder of Mr Lee and the assault on Mr Su’a. Mr Lisiate pleaded guilty to the murder charge on 19 May 2021. With the intervention of COVID-19 he is yet to be sentenced.

[7] At the start of their trial before me on 24 May 2021. Messrs Telefoni, Ngamoki and Tuliloa pleaded guilty to the joint charge of injuring Mr Su’a with intent to injure him. The jury acquitted Mr Telefoni of murder but found him guilty of manslaughter. He is yet to be sentenced.

[8] The jury acquitted Messrs Ngamoki and Tuliloa of any form of culpable homicide.

1 Crimes Act 1961 s 189(2). Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 10. Maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,000.

Remote participation and VMR

[9] One of the challenges which the Court faces when undertaking a sentencing using the Virtual Meeting Room platforms under the current COVID-19 Alert Level 3 restrictions, is maintaining a stable connection for all participants involved in the sentencing process. Where multiple defendants are to be sentenced by remote connection there are often capacity issues which are not present when sentencing is undertaken in person and in Court. These complications relate to the need to accommodate not only the defendants and their counsel, but also their whānau and supporters, as well as the Crown, victims, victim vupport, and the media. For this reason, Mr Ngamoki and Mr Tuliloa are being sentenced separately from Mr Lisiate and Mr Telefoni.

[10] While it will be necessary to refer to the actions of the other defendants in order to explain the index offending and the involvement of each defendant, the jury by its verdicts explicitly rejected that Messrs Ngamoki and Tuliloa were in any way connected to or responsible for the events which led to Mr Lee’s death. Mr Ngamoki and Mr Tuliloa must therefore…

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 Ngamoki

Details

AGLC: R v Ngamoki [2021] NZHC 2918
Case: [2021] NZHC 2918
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ngamoki involved sentencing remarks for Riki Ngamoki and Paul Tuliloa who were both found guilty of injuring with intent to injure a fellow inmate, Mr Cesar Su’a, while incarcerated at Auckland’s maximum security prison at Paremoremo. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for each defendant, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court also needed to consider the principle of totality, ensuring that the sentence imposed was proportionate and not excessive when viewed in the context of the defendants' current sentences.

In reaching its decision, the court first identified the relevant sentencing principles and legal issues, including the importance of observing parity between co-offenders and the need to prioritise the principles of deterrence and denunciation in cases of violent offending in a prison environment. The court then determined the appropriate starting point for the offending, considering the aggravating factors such as the targeting of the victim’s head, the involvement of multiple attackers, and the extent of violence. The court also assessed the personal aggravating and mitigating features of each defendant, including their criminal history, youth, and guilty pleas. After weighing all the factors, the court imposed a sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment for Ngamoki and 22 months’ imprisonment for Tuliloa, to be served cumulatively on their current sentences. The court did not consider an adjustment for totality necessary as the sentences were not deemed excessive or crushing.

Orders