R v Tagatauli - [2016] NZHC 757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-091-565 [2016] NZHC 757

THE QUEEN

v

AALIYAH TAGATAULI

Hearing: 21 April 2016

Counsel:

J A Eng for Crown
L C Ord and N I Burt for Defendant

Sentence:

21 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF CLIFFORD J

[1] Ms Tagatauli, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mura Tagatauli. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2] Ms Tagatauli, I provided you with a sentence indication on 23 March this year. I indicated a sentence of home detention for 12 months. Your guilty plea was entered shortly after that indication. I now sentence you on the terms I indicated.

[3] [In Court, when sentencing Ms Tagatauli, and because these matters had all been covered in detail at the time of her sentencing indication, I summarised what now follows.]

[4] As I said when I provided that sentencing indication, the events which have

brought Ms Tagatauli and Mr Tagatauli’s family and friends here today are tragic. It

R v TAGATAULI [2016] NZHC 757 [21 April 2016]

is my job to sentence Ms Tagatauli in accordance with the law. The law does its best to respond to tragedies such as these but, as we all know, cannot do so in a way that adequately addresses the emotional impact of such an event on all involved.

The offending

[5] Mr Tagatauli died in Wellington Hospital on 12 March 2015, the day after he had been stabbed by you in the course of an incident of domestic violence. The charge of manslaughter reflects what the Crown considers to be the proper characterisation of your responsibility, that is your criminal responsibility, for the death of Mr Tagatauli. That is: the Crown accepts you did not intend to kill Mr Tagatauli – or to cause him bodily harm likely to cause death. You were originally charged with murder. The charge of manslaughter to which you plead guilty reflects the Crown’s view of your culpability.

[6] The agreed statement of facts, which is the basis on which I sentence you, records that in March 2015 you were living with Mr Tagatauli at an address in Porirua. You were 28, Mr Tagatauli 37. You and Mr Tagatauli had been in a relationship since early 2013. During that relationship you adopted the Tagatauli surname by deed poll. That has caused tensions between you and his family. You now wish to be known by your previous name, Amanda Taitapanui. I acknowledge that wish. However, as your legal name remains Tagatauli, it is as Ms Tagatauli that I will refer to you.

[7] At the time of Mr Tagatauli’s death, you and he had had one child together. You were at that time, although not known to you, five weeks pregnant with your second child together. You have since given birth to that child, another daughter. You have three other children from a previous relationship. Those children also resided with you at the Porirua address.…

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 Tagatauli

Details

AGLC: R v Tagatauli [2016] NZHC 757
Case: [2016] NZHC 757
Decision Date: 21 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaliyah Tagatauli was convicted of the manslaughter of Mura Tagatauli, her partner, and sentenced to 12 months' home detention. Mura died from a stab wound to his thigh, caused during an altercation between the two, which occurred in the context of a violent and abusive relationship. Aaliyah pleaded guilty to the charge, which was accepted by the Crown as the appropriate characterization of her criminal responsibility. The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Aaliyah, considering both the circumstances of the offence and her personal circumstances, including her guilty plea and the impact of her offending on Mura's family. The court found that Aaliyah's actions, although tragic, were not premeditated and that she had not intended to cause serious harm. The court also found that Aaliyah suffered from complex post-traumatic stress disorder, which materially contributed to her offending. The court sentenced Aaliyah to 12 months' home detention, a decision that took into account her remorse, her personal circumstances, and the need for accountability, promoting responsibility, denouncing the offending, and providing deterrence to others. The court also considered the need for Aaliyah to care for her two young daughters, the daughters of Mura.

Orders