R v Stewart - [2013] NZHC 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-091-3033 [2013] NZHC 126

THE QUEEN

v

MANAWANUI REREWHAITARANGI STEWART

Hearing: 8 February 2013

Counsel: K Feltham for Crown
C W J Stevenson for Accused

Sentence: 8 February 2013

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Mr Stewart, before I sentence you I need to give you a warning relating to what is called the three strikes law. Given your conviction for manslaughter, you are now subject to the three strikes law. And I am now going to give you that warning of the consequences of another serious violent conviction. You will also be given a written warning.

[2] If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

[3] If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to

R V MANAWANUI REREWHAITARANGI STEWART HC WN CRI 2012-091-3033 [8 February 2013]

do so. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[4] I want to say to those in the back of the Court that no sentence I can impose today is meant to say that this is what Izak’s life is worth. No Judge and no sentence in a Court can ever do this.

[5] Mr Stewart, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The events that give rise to Izak Millanta’s death began on the morning of
11 August 2012 but there is, however, some background to the events.

[6] It seems that Izak and his brother, Tane, whom you have also pleaded guilty to assaulting that night, had been involved in a confrontation with an associate of yours. And so by the night of 11 August there was considerable tension between the two Millanta brothers and you and your associates.

[7] You and another man arrived at the Kapiti Lights Complex just after midnight on 11 August. You stayed in the other man’s car, drinking and talking with other friends who were nearby. At about 1.00 a.m. you entered the Retro Bar but returned shortly afterwards for more alcohol. You saw Tane Millanta walking towards the Retro Bar and you went over and punched him two or three times in the face, knocking him to the ground before going back to the bar. Later you apologised to Tane.

[8] You have also pleaded guilty to assault with intent to injure that night. Earlier in the evening a scuffle broke out between the victim and another person who was known to you. You stepped in and punched Mr Strongman-Linter in the face once knocking him unconscious to the ground. You then dragged him toward State Highway 1. Bystanders pleaded with you to leave the victim alone and so he was dragged back onto the…

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 Stewart

Details

AGLC: R v Stewart [2013] NZHC 126
Case: [2013] NZHC 126
Decision Date: 8 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Manawani Rerewhaitang Stewart faced sentencing following his guilty plea to manslaughter and two counts of assault. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for these offences, considering the gravity of the violence and the mitigating factors present in Stewart's case. The primary legal issue was to establish the appropriate sentence that would reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors and the context of the defendant's background and personal circumstances.

The court began by outlining the three strikes law and its implications for Stewart, given his previous convictions for serious violent offences. The court then detailed the events leading up to the fatal assault, highlighting the escalation of violence fuelled by alcohol and minor altercations. It was noted that Stewart had a history of similar violent behaviour and had been given multiple opportunities to change his ways. Despite this, he chose to continue his pattern of violence and aggression. The court acknowledged the profound impact of Stewart's actions on the victim's family and friends, emphasising the senselessness of the violence and the long-lasting consequences for all involved.

After considering the submissions from both the Crown and Stewart's counsel, the court determined that the appropriate starting point for the manslaughter offence was seven and a half years' imprisonment. An additional six months was added for the two assault charges, resulting in a total starting sentence of eight years. However, the court deducted 25% from this starting point due to Stewart's early guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of six years' imprisonment. The court decided against increasing the sentence further due to Stewart's previous convictions, instead focusing on the mitigating factor of his early guilty plea and the context of his offending. Stewart was sentenced to five years and eight months for the manslaughter charge and four months for each assault charge, with the latter sentences running concurrently with the former.

Orders