R v Niania - [2020] NZHC 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-091-002643

[2020] NZHC 241

THE QUEEN

v

WADE EDWARD NIANIA

Hearing: 21 February 2020

Counsel:

S A H Bishop for the Crown

I M Antunovic for the Defendant

Sentencing:

21 February 2020

SENTENCING OF DOOGUE J

[1]Mr Niania you appear for sentence on the following charges:

(a)manslaughter;1

(b)kidnapping;2

(c)possession of methamphetamine for supply, and3

(d)driving while disqualified.4

1      Crimes Act 1961 s 171; maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961 s 209(b); maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 s 6(1)(c); maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998 s 32(1)(a); maximum penalty is three months imprisonment or a
$4500 fine. It carries a mandatory six-month disqualification.

R v NIANIA [2020] NZHC 241 [21 February 2020]

[2] Before I describe the sentencing process and your sentence, I will outline the facts from which these charges have arisen.

[3] Your victim, Mr Ula, had in his possession five ounces of methamphetamine. You arranged to purchase the methamphetamine off Mr Ula and another person, Mr Funaki (although unbeknownst to Mr Ula you had only three hundred dollars with which to purchase the methamphetamine). You and Mr Ula arranged to make the transaction on the afternoon of 7 October 2018, at the Waitangirua Mall in Porirua.

[4] Between 3.45 pm and 3.50 pm on the 7 October 2018, you and another person travelled to the Waitangirua Mall in a black Mercedes. Mr Ula and Mr Funaki drove to the meeting point, travelling in a Mazda RX8.

[5] At the meeting point, Mr Ula exited the Mazda RX8 with the methamphetamine and climbed into your Mercedes through its rear passenger door. He handed the methamphetamine to you. A disagreement occurred over payment. You drove out of the carpark with Mr Ula in the back seat of your Mercedes. Mr Funaki followed in the Mazda RX8. You drove a short distance to the intersection of Niagara Street and Warspite Avenue. At the intersection, your Mercedes and the Mazda RX8 separated. Mr Ula then realised his situation and asked you to stop the car. Instead you accelerated, putting distance between you and Mr Funaki in the Mazda RX8.

[6] You drove at speed for around 700 meters. As you approached a roundabout at the intersection of Warspite Avenue and Ompapere Street, Mr Ula attempted to escape by opening the car door and preparing to jump out onto the road. Meanwhile Mr Funaki was accelerating to catch up with you.

[7] You did not slow down while travelling through the Ompapere Street roundabout, travelling at a speed in excess of 70 kilometres per hour. You then began overtaking other vehicles and maintained your speed. Mr Ula moved half way out of the Mercedes door, facing the direction the car was travelling in. He had his right hand on the open car door and held onto the car’s doorframe with his…

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 Niania

Details

AGLC: R v Niania [2020] NZHC 241
Case: [2020] NZHC 241
Decision Date: 21 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the defendant, Wade Edward Niania, appeared for sentencing on charges of manslaughter, kidnapping, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and driving while disqualified. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

The court considered the gravity of the offending, which included the dangerous driving that led to the victim's death during a drug deal gone wrong. The defendant's actions showed a high degree of callousness and disregard for human life. Additionally, the court examined the defendant's personal circumstances, including his background and the trauma he experienced growing up in a gang environment. Despite this, the court found that the defendant had taken steps towards rehabilitation and had shown remorse for his actions.

After considering the starting point of eight years imprisonment, the court applied discounts for personal mitigating factors, remorse, and the defendant's guilty pleas. The final sentence was five years and one month imprisonment, to be served concurrently on the manslaughter, kidnapping, and possession for supply charges. The defendant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a motor vehicle driver’s licence for a period of three years, six months post release from prison on the manslaughter charge, and six months on the driving while disqualified charge.

The court concluded by warning the defendant of the consequences of being convicted of another serious violent offence or murder in the future, which could result in a sentence without parole or early release.

Orders