R v Niumagumagu - [2021] NZHC 3465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-092-006563

[2021] NZHC 3465

THE QUEEN

v

SOAFA NIUMAGUMAGU

Hearing: 16 December 2021

Counsel:

LP Radich and JM Pridgeon for Crown SK Green for Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. SK Green, Auckland.

R v NIUMAGUMAGU [2021] NZHC 3465 [16 December 2021]

Charges

[1] Mr Niumagumagu, you are for sentence on two charges: attempted murder and manslaughter. The crime of attempted murder carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment; manslaughter, life imprisonment.

Facts

[2] The first victim is your former wife, Puapuaga Matamua. In the middle of 2019, she left you for another. In the days leading to 20 June that year, you told a colleague you wished you had a gun; you wanted to shoot Ms Matamua; and you wanted to hurt her new boyfriend. You told another colleague the only thing that would end the pain would be a sapelu. Sapelu is the Samoan word for machete. In the same period, you sharpened a 20-centimetre piece of steel at your workplace to use against your former wife as a weapon.

[3] On 20 June 2019, you drove to her workplace a little before her shift ended. You took with you the piece of sharpened steel. When Ms Matamua left the factory, you approached her. After brief conversation, you threatened to kill Ms Matamua; grabbed her by the hair; and then attempted to repeatedly stab her to the neck and head with the weapon you had made.

[4] Ms Matamua screamed for help and fought back. Colleagues came to her aid. I commend her bravery and their bravery. They restrained you. You continued to say you wanted to kill her.

[5] You then got into your car. Some of Ms Matamua’s colleagues confronted you on the road outside the factory. You accelerated and hit one of them. You were found not guilty of assault with a weapon in relation to this sequence. I, therefore, place no weight on it in determining your sentence.

[6] You then drove to the end of the dead-end street, turned around and drove back toward the factory. Had you kept going, you would be for sentence on the charge of attempted murder only. But you did not keep going. Instead, you turned left and drove back into the factory carpark. You paused at the entrance to the carpark. You then

drove at speed toward the second victim, Sagaia Kaisala. She and others ran for their lives. You hit Ms Kaisala with your car, throwing her into another parked car. She died instantly. You then reversed and drove away.

[7] Ms Kaisala was a colleague of Ms Matamua and had comforted her in the wake of your attack.

[8] This sequence attracted a murder charge. The jury found you not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The unlawful act underlying the charge was a deliberate running down:…

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 Niumagumagu

Details

AGLC: R v Niumagumagu [2021] NZHC 3465
Case: [2021] NZHC 3465
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Sofaa Niumagumagu, was sentenced for the charges of attempted murder and manslaughter. Niumagumagu had attempted to murder his ex-wife, Puapuaga Matamua, by stabbing her with a sharpened piece of steel, and subsequently, he deliberately ran over and killed Sagaia Kaisala, a colleague of Matamua, with his car. The court was required to decide the appropriate starting points and sentences for both charges, considering the premeditation, the use of weapons, and the gravity of the crimes. The court also had to assess Niumagumagu's personal circumstances, including his criminal history, family background, employment, and mental health, to determine any mitigating factors.

The court found that the attempted murder charge was premeditated, involved a weapon, and targeted the head and neck, making it more serious. The court rejected the defence's argument that the attack was not sustained and accepted the Crown's starting point of nine and a half years' imprisonment. For the manslaughter charge, the court considered the use of the car as a weapon, the gratuitous and callous nature of the violence, and the vulnerability of the victim. The court adopted a starting point of nine years' imprisonment for this charge. After considering all factors, the court determined a global starting point of 13 years and 9 months' imprisonment. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his criminal history, family background, employment, and potential mental health issues, but did not find sufficient grounds for a discount for remorse or mitigating features. The court imposed a sentence of 11 and a half years' imprisonment for attempted murder and 7 and a half years' imprisonment for manslaughter, to be served concurrently, and a one-year driving disqualification upon release from prison.

The final orders of the court were that Sofaa Niumagumagu is sentenced to 11 and a half years' imprisonment for the charge of attempted murder, and 7 and a half years' imprisonment for the charge of manslaughter, both terms to run concurrently. Additionally, he is disqualified from driving for one year once he is released from prison, with the disqualification ending on the expiry date of his sentence.

Orders