R v Tafutu - [2014] NZHC 657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-001678 [2014] NZHC 657

THE QUEEN

v

TREVOR TAFUTU AND
SIMONA LIATOA

Hearing: 3 April 2014

Appearances:

Charges:

Plea:

S L McColgan for Crown

P Eastwood for Defendant Tafutu
M Kan for Defendant Liato

Manslaughter Aggravated Robbery Assault on Female

Gulity

Sentenced: 3 April 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy To: P Eastwood, Auckland
M Kan, Auckland

R v TAFUTU AND LIATOA [2014] NZHC 657 [3 April 2014]

[1] Trevor Tafutu and Simona Liatoa, you are for sentence in this Court having pleaded guilty to manslaughter, aggravated robbery and assault on a female. You killed Michael Rapata and in the course of the incident leading to his death assaulted his partner. The offence of manslaughter carries a maximum term of life imprisonment.

[2] Mr Tafutu you knew about the deceased’s address and the fact that cannabis might be dealt there and might be present. On the afternoon of 11 February last year both of you were with a group of associates drinking alcohol. At around 7 o’clock that night both of you, together with a third party, Jason Tafutu, left in a car intending to go to the deceased’s home to get some cannabis. You jointly discussed this as going to be “an earn”. You were ready to use violence on the occupants as part of your plan in going there.

[3] You directed Jason Tafutu to drive to the address and Mr Tafutu, you also told Mr Liatoa what he was to do when you got there. When you arrived outside the deceased’s home in Three Kings where he lived with his partner the two of you went to their house and knocked on the door. Immediately the deceased’s partner opened the door the two of you forced the door further open and went in. Mr Liatoa you grabbed the deceased’s partner by her shoulders but told her you did not want to hit her. She pulled away and went towards the front door. Mr Tafutu you then punched her on the chin which caused her to fall into the lounge area. You then went on to attack the deceased in the lounge causing him to fall to the floor. You repeatedly punched him about the head while he was on the floor. You then motioned for Mr Liatoa to come and help you. Mr Liatoa you went over and you joined in and you started to punch the deceased as well. While you were doing this you identified yourselves as being associated with a criminal gang.

[4] Fortunately the deceased’s partner managed to escape from the property and ran to a neighbouring address and alerted the police. The two of you left but before you did you stole four tinnies of cannabis from the address, and then went off in the car that you had been brought in.

[5] In the meantime the deceased made it to the rear of the house where he…

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 Tafutu

Details

AGLC: R v Tafutu [2014] NZHC 657
Case: [2014] NZHC 657
Decision Date: 3 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tafutu, the defendants, Trevor Tafutu and Simona Liatoa, were sentenced for their involvement in the manslaughter, aggravated robbery, and assault on a female. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendants in light of their guilty pleas and the aggravating circumstances of the case. The defendants had assaulted the deceased, Michael Rapata, and his partner, resulting in the death of Mr Rapata. The court had to consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, including denunciation, deterrence, and the interests of the victims and the community.

The court identified several aggravating factors, such as the degree of planning and premeditation, the aspect of home invasion, and the use of violence, which contributed to the death of the deceased. The court also considered the mitigating factors, such as the defendants' guilty pleas and their participation in restorative justice meetings with the victims. After assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the appropriate starting point for the defendants' sentences was eight to nine years' imprisonment. The court further considered the defendants' personal circumstances, including their previous offending and expressions of remorse, to arrive at the final sentences.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Trevor Tafutu to six years and ten months' imprisonment for manslaughter and aggravated robbery, and 18 months' imprisonment for assault on a female, with the sentences running concurrently. Simona Liatoa was sentenced to five years and ten months' imprisonment for manslaughter and aggravated robbery, and 12 months' imprisonment for assault on a female, also with the sentences running concurrently. The court did not impose a minimum non-parole period for the defendants' sentences, given the factors discussed.

Orders