R v Taipari - [2014] NZHC 1014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-019-002264 [2014] NZHC 1014

THE QUEEN

v

ARLEYE TAIPARI

Hearing: 15 May 2014

Appearances:

R G Douch for Crown
R Weir for A Taipari

Sentence:

15 May 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TAIPARI A [2014] NZHC 1014 [15 May 2014]

[1] Mr Taipari, you appear for sentence today after pleading guilty during your trial to a charge of wounding with intent to injure. You were originally due to be sentenced on 25 March 2014, but on that date you dispensed with the services of your counsel and indicated that you wished to vacate your guilty plea. At that point I made directions to enable that process to be undertaken, but you have now elected to maintain your guilty plea.

[2] You took issue prior to today’s hearing with two matters in the summary of facts. Following a telephone conference yesterday, that issue has now been resolved. Accordingly, there is now no impediment to me proceeding to sentence you. As you have heard, the maximum sentence available to the Court is one of seven years imprisonment.

[3] I record that you also faced additional charges, but the Crown has now elected not to adduce any evidence in respect of those charges. I therefore now discharge you on them pursuant to s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.

The facts

[4] The charge to which you have pleaded guilty arises out of an incident that occurred on the evening of Monday 28 January 2013. At that stage, you were 21 years of age.

[5] On that date the victim of your offending, who was well known to you, was at his home address with his partner and friend. They were outdoors working on a motor vehicle. For some unknown reason, the victim’s friend began texting you indicating that the victim wished to have a fight with you. This prompted you to travel to the victim’s address in a motor vehicle with your 16 year old brother. You took with you two samurai swords.

[6] When you arrived at the address, your brother advanced towards the victim brandishing the two swords. The victim did not back away, and challenged your

brother to fight “one on one”. Your brother then approached the victim in an aggressive manner brandishing the two swords. He struck the victim a blow with the flat surface of one of the swords with sufficient force to fracture his left upper jaw. At that point, the victim’s partner began screaming and telling you and your brother to leave the property. Rather than leaving, however, your brother effectively chased the victim inside the house where he continued to lunch at him with the two swords. This resulted in the victim receiving a severe cut to the side of his face. There is some dispute, or doubt, as to whether or not this was as a result of a blow or the sword flying out of your brother’s hand. Either way,…

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 Taipari

Details

AGLC: R v Taipari [2014] NZHC 1014
Case: [2014] NZHC 1014
Decision Date: 15 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Taipari involved Arleye Taipari, who pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to injure. The incident occurred on January 28, 2013, when Taipari and his brother arrived at the victim's address with two samurai swords. Taipari's brother used the swords to attack the victim, causing severe injuries including permanent loss of facial nerves. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the seriousness of the offence and Taipari's culpability despite not being the direct assailant.

The legal issues in this case centred around determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering Taipari's involvement in facilitating the attack and his prior criminal history. The court had to balance the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability with mitigating factors such as Taipari's expressed remorse and the difficult personal circumstances he faces. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether to impose a minimum term of imprisonment to ensure adequate recognition of the aforementioned principles.

The court concluded that a starting point of three years and nine months imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting Taipari's role in the attack and his prior violent offending. An uplift of six months was added due to the fact that the offence occurred while Taipari was on parole. Despite Taipari's remorse and personal hardships, the court found that he remained at high risk of reoffending. The court acknowledged Taipari's guilty plea but did not make a significant allowance for it due to the late timing. Consequently, Taipari was sentenced to three years and seven months imprisonment, with a minimum term of one year and nine months to ensure adequate deterrence and accountability.

Finally, Taipari was sentenced to three years and seven months imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum term of one year and nine months.

Orders