R v Tai

Case [2018] NZHC 1602 29 June 2018

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-2017-092-4397

[2018] NZHC 1602

THE QUEEN

v

TURIARANGI TAI

Hearing: 29 June 2018

Appearances:

M Williams and D Muratbegovic for the Crown P J Kaye and R Keam for the Defendant

Judgment:

29 June 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Counsel/Solicitors:
M Williams and D Muratbegovic, Kayes Fletcher Walker, Crown Solicitors, Manukau P J Kaye, Barrister, Auckland
R Keam, Barrister, Auckland

R v TAI [2018] NZHC 1602 [29 June 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Turiarangi Tai appears for sentence on one charge of murder and one of unlawful possession of a firearm.1 The victim was Mr Tai’s former partner, Chozyn Koroheke. Mr Tai received a first strike warning on 10 May 2016. This is now his second strike offence, so Mr Tai faces the prospect of life imprisonment without parole, unless, given the circumstances of the offending and of Mr Tai, it would be manifestly unjust to impose that sentence.2

[2] I will begin by setting out the facts of the offending and summarising the victim impact statements. I will discuss the principles and purposes of sentencing and the approach I will undertake in relation to a second strike murder sentence. I will briefly outline the Crown and defence submissions. Then I will determine whether imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would be manifestly unjust. I will address the firearms charge separately.

Facts of the Offending

[3] Mr Tai and the deceased, Chozyn, had been in a relationship for several months. They lived together (with intermittent periods of separation) at 230C Pakuranga Highway, which was a rental property they shared with three others: Naycn (Chozyn’s brother); Nacyn’s girlfriend, Samantha Douglas; and another flatmate. Mr Tai and Chozyn’s relationship was a dysfunctional and mistrustful one, characterised by frequent arguments, often brought on by mutual suspicions of unfaithfulness. At trial, there was significant evidence of Mr Tai’s escalating domestic violence towards Chozyn over the period of that relationship. This included an incident where he stabbed her in the leg. Mr Tai denied he was physically violent to her, but I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a pattern of physical and emotional abuse was established.3 This culminated in the events on 4 April 2017.

[4] The night before, each had socialised separately at friends’ addresses and Mr Tai had stayed up all night consuming alcohol and methamphetamine. In the

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172, maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b), maximum penalty 4 years’ imprisonment, $5,000 fine.
2      Section 86E(2)(b).
3      Such conclusion also being consistent with the jury verdict.

morning, he collected Chozyn and arguments started about why he had not done so earlier. Again, there were underlying suspicions of unfaithfulness. They returned to the Pakuranga Highway address where Mr Tai brooded and argued. Later in the day, Mr Tai showed Nacyn (observed by Samantha) a 12-gauge shotgun which he had recently acquired. It was…

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 Tai

Details

AGLC: R v Tai [2018] NZHC 1602
Case: [2018] NZHC 1602
Decision Date: 29 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Turiarangi Tai was convicted of the murder of Chozyn Koroheke, his former partner, and of the unlawful possession of a firearm. The court considered whether imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole would be manifestly unjust. The Crown submitted that Tai had not expressed any remorse, had no history of serious mental illness, and no verifiable history of self-harm. The defence submitted that, given Tai's age, a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole would be wholly disproportionate to the sentence he would otherwise have received. The court found that, while Tai had a lengthy history of violent offending, he was only 23 years of age at the time of sentencing. The court decided that it would be manifestly unjust for Tai to be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of 17 years' imprisonment for the murder charge and a concurrent sentence of five months' imprisonment for the firearms charge.

Orders