Legal Research
Cases
R v Patangata

R v Patangata

Case [2019] NZHC 744 9 April 2019

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Compensatory Damages

Vicarious Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-019-001105

[2019] NZHC 744

THE QUEEN

v

TENESHIAH PUHINAHINA PATANGATA

Hearing: 9 April 2019

Counsel:

L Dunn for Crown

MJ Dyhrberg QC for Defendant

Judgment:

9 April 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. MJ Dyhrberg QC, Auckland.

R v PATANGATA [2019] NZHC 744 [9 April 2019]

[1] I begin by acknowledging the presence of whānau and how this is a difficult day for everyone. I thank you for your participation.

Facts

[2] Ms Teneshiah Patangata, you are for sentence for manslaughter. On 1 January 2018, you stabbed your partner, Mr Peter Savage, to the neck with a butcher’s knife. The wound you inflicted cut Mr Savage’s jugular vein, carotid artery and into his fifth vertebrae. Mr Savage quickly lost consciousness. And died.

[3] You had been in a relationship with Mr Savage for approximately two years. Trial evidence revealed he was an excellent step-father to your four young children. But, your relationship with Mr Savage could be turbulent. I return to this later.

[4] You committed this offence in the wake of a New Year’s Eve party, attended by whānau and friends. You and Mr Savage had been drinking. And arguing. The argument escalated to violence when you slapped Mr Savage to the face. You and he then hit each other. Mr Savage twice kicked your legs. He also grabbed your throat with one hand, choking you, albeit not for long. The fight then moved near a barbeque. You and he continued to hit each other. On the wall above the barbeque was a set of knives. You grabbed one and—as I have said—stabbed Mr Savage to the neck. You held Mr Savage as he died. Members of his family tried to save him—but could not. Only immediate medical attention might have saved his life.

[5] Police were quickly on the scene. You made a video-recorded statement that evening. You said everything had been “good” at the party before you and Mr Savage began arguing. You described slapping Mr Savage and the ensuing fight. But, you denied stabbing him. You said you had nothing in your hand when he fell to the ground, fatally injured. You said you did not know what caused him to fall, or the cause of his injury.

[6] You were charged with murder. You advanced many defences at trial. I use the term “defences” broadly, and not in a technical sense. You argued Mr Savage might have killed himself with the knife, as he had been very unhappy six weeks

earlier. You also raised self-defence, and the possibility you had not intentionally stabbed him. You disputed murderous intent too. You did not testify.

[7] The jury found you not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. It follows the jury concluded you killed Mr Savage by stabbing him, without intending to cause him injury known to be likely to cause death.

[8] I am…

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 Patangata

Details

AGLC: R v Patangata [2019] NZHC 744
Case: [2019] NZHC 744
Decision Date: 9 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Teneshiah Patangata has been found guilty of manslaughter following the fatal stabbing of her partner, Peter Savage. The High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, heard the case and determined the appropriate sentence. The court was tasked with deciding the starting point for the sentence, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately deciding on the final sentence. The starting point for sentencing was contested between the parties, with the Crown advocating for a longer sentence and the defense arguing for a shorter one. The court ultimately settled on a starting point of six years, acknowledging the lethal nature of the violence, weapon use, and the attack on the victim's neck. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as the defendant's background, potential for rehabilitation, and her time spent on electronically monitored bail. The final sentence was a five-year term of imprisonment, all of which must be served.

The final orders of the court were that Teneshiah Patangata be sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of Peter Savage, all of which must be served.

Orders