Legal Research
Cases
R v Taani

R v Taani

Case [2019] NZHC 1746 23 July 2019

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

High Level of Brutality

Execution-style Killing

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-005114

[2019] NZHC 1746

THE QUEEN

v

VILLIAMI TEKIMASISU TAANI

Hearing: 23 July 2019

Appearances:

G Kayes for the Crown

R Mansfield and S Lack for the Defendant

Sentence:

23 July 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Ronald Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland Steven Lack, Barrister, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau

R v TAANI [2019] NZHC 1746 [23 July 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mr Taani, you pleaded guilty to one charge of murder and one charge of attempted murder, following a sentence indication I gave.

[2] I have chosen to set out my reasoning in full today, rather than annex the sentence indication to these sentencing notes.

[3] You were charged alongside two others. Since you pleaded guilty, they have been found guilty by a jury but have not yet been sentenced.

[4] I must proceed on the summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty. This presents some difficulty because that summary of facts describes your co-defendants’ roles and other matters in terms which may not be consistent with the evidence in the trial. Readers of these sentencing notes must therefore bear this in mind, and not presume my account is an accurate summary in all respects of the evidence in the trial. For this reason, I have also chosen not to name your co-defendants.

Background

[5] The surviving complainant is a Mrs Tu’uheava. Her husband is the deceased. They had been married for nine years, lived in South Auckland, and their son was eight at the time of Mr Tu’uheava’s death.

[6] The deceased became a patched member of the Nomads Motorcycle Group in Australia. After he returned to New Zealand in 2017, he began building an association with the Comancheros Motorcycle Club New Zealand, of which you are a member. Since the beginning of 2018, the deceased was involved in selling methamphetamine.

[7] On 30 April 2018, you and your two co-defendants met with Mr and Mrs Tu’uheava on Greenwood Road, Mangere. You had met once before on the same day in Manukau and had texted each other to arrange the location.

[8] Mr and Mrs Tu’uheava arrived there around 10.44 pm. Mr Tu’uheava had told his wife he was going there to obtain a quantity of methamphetamine. They had a

luggage bag in the boot with $48,000 in cash and a sports bag in the front with $15,000 in cash, and some methamphetamine.

[9] The deceased got out of the car to speak with you. The conversation apparently went on for around 10 minutes, after which he returned to the car and told Mrs Tu’uheava that the “deal” was done.

[10]Everyone left, and Mr and Mrs Tu’uheava drove to a nearby petrol station.

[11] They came back to meet you and the other two defendants again on Greenwood Road at around 11.15 pm.

[12] Mr Tu’uheava got out of the car carrying the sports bag and spoke with you…

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 Taani

Details

AGLC: R v Taani [2019] NZHC 1746
Case: [2019] NZHC 1746
Decision Date: 23 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taani was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The defendant, Villiami Tekimasisu Taani, was convicted of one charge of murder and one charge of attempted murder. The court heard submissions from counsel for both the Crown and the defence. The legal issues in the case related to the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending. The court had to decide on the minimum period of imprisonment for the murder charge, considering the exceptional circumstances and high level of brutality, as well as the impact on the victims and their families. The court also had to determine the sentence for the attempted murder charge, taking into account the severity of the offending against the surviving victim.

The court found that the murder charge was committed in the course of another serious offence, with high levels of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness, and other exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that the defendant's actions displayed a high level of brutality and callousness, warranting a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years or more. The court decided on a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years and six months for the murder charge, taking into account the aggravating features of the offending, the comparison with similar cases, and the discount for the defendant's guilty plea. For the attempted murder charge, the court determined a sentence of 11 years and two months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, considering the severity of the offending against the surviving victim.

Orders