R v Samatua HC Auckland CRI 2008-055-2865

[2010] NZHC 1419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2008-055-2865

THE QUEEN

v

SAM SAMATUA

Hearing:         16 August 2010

Appearances: Ms Y Yelavich for Crown

Mr A Couchman for Accused

Sentence:       16 August 2010

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Mr A Couchman, Auckland

R V SAMATUA HC AK CRI-2008-055-2865  16 August 2010

[1]      Mr Samatua, your trial this morning on charges of assault with intent to injure, attempted murder, threatening to kill and sexual violation commenced before a  jury.    When  the  complainant  gave  evidence,  however,  she  spoke  only of  an incident that occurred in your bedroom in which you had strangled her for a period of minutes using a heater cord.  She did not speak about any of the other incidents that gave arise to the remaining charges.

[2]      After taking instructions, the Crown accepted that a plea of guilty to a charge of  assault  with  intent  to  injure  would  adequately capture  the  culpability of  the incident about which the complainant spoke.   You then indicated that you were prepared to enter a guilty plea to that charge on the basis that the Crown did not proceed with the remaining charges.

[3]      When the jury returned,  you were arraigned again and pleaded  guilty to Count 3 in the indictment, which is a charge of assault with intent to injure.  The Crown then formally confirmed that it did not wish to proceed on the remaining charges and I made an order discharging you on those charges pursuant to s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[4]      The incident that gave rise to the charge clearly arose in a domestic context. It  seems  that  you  and  the complainant  had  a  volatile relationship  and  that  this incident formed but one of several involving a physical altercation.  Of itself, I am satisfied that the incident would have warranted a term of 18 months imprisonment. I record that, notwithstanding the fact that a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, you have waived the need for a pre-sentence report given the fact that the sentence that I will impose upon you means that you will be immediately released.

[5]      To that starting point of 18 months imprisonment  I add an uplift of six months imprisonment to reflect your numerous previous convictions, some of which involve convictions for assault and assault on a female.   You need to know, Mr Samatua, that from now on when you appear on charges involving violence, it will be inevitable that the sentence will be increased to reflect your previous convictions.

[6]      From the end starting point of two years imprisonment, I propose to deduct three months to reflect your guilty plea even though it came at a very late stage. Your initial stance was that nothing the complainant said was correct and that she was fabricating all of her evidence.  At least your guilty plea means that you accept responsibility for one incident involving violence.

[7]      This means that I arrive at an end sentence of 21 months imprisonment.  You have already spent approximately 15 months in prison in custody on remand.  The sentence that I now impose means that you will be released immediately.

[8]      You are therefore sentenced to imprisonment for 21 months on the charge to which you have pleaded guilty.

Lang J