R v Taipari - [2014] NZHC 577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-019-002264 [2014] NZHC 577

THE QUEEN

v

COREY JUNIOR TAIPARI

Hearing: 25 March 2014

Appearances:

R Douch for Crown
M McIvor for C Taipari

Sentence:

25 March 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TAIPARI [2014] NZHC 577 [25 March 2014]

[1] Mr Taipari, you appear for sentence today after pleading guilty after the commencement of your trial to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. At the beginning of your trial you faced other charges, including a charge of attempted murder. The Crown accepts, in light of your plea, that it would not be appropriate to proceed further with the remaining charges. For that reason, I now discharge you on those charges pursuant to s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961. I am now required to sentence you on the remaining charge, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

Facts

[2] The charge arises out of an incident that occurred on the evening of Monday,

28 January 2013. At that stage you were just 16 years of age. On that date the victim of your offending, Mr Taylor, was at his home address with his partner and a friend. The two men were outdoors working on a motor vehicle. For some unknown reason, Mr Taylor’s friend began texting your brother indicating that Mr Taylor wished to have a fight with your brother. This prompted your brother to get into his vehicle and drive round to Mr Taylor’s house. You accompanied your brother, and took with you two Samurai swords.

[3] When you arrived at the address, you walked towards Mr Taylor brandishing the two swords. Mr Taylor then responded by taking his shirt off, and telling you that if you wanted to have a fight then it should be “one on one” and without weapons. You continued to go down the driveway towards him brandishing the Samurai swords in his direction. You went right up to Mr Taylor and hit him on the face with the flat edge of one of the swords. This blow was of sufficient force to fracture Mr Taylor’s left upper jaw.

[4] At that point, Mr Taylor’s partner began screaming and telling Mr Taylor to get inside the property. She told you to get off her property. Rather than doing that, you rushed past Mr Taylor’s partner and into the house. As you passed his partner, you vomited over her. You then chased Mr Taylor through the house. He attempted to place himself behind a pool table and thereby out of your reach, but as he left the room a short time later you ran up behind him and struck him with the Samurai

sword on the side of the head. There is some dispute as to whether or not you struck this as a deliberate blow, or whether instead the handle of the sword broke and it flew out of your grasp. Whatever be the cause, the…

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 577
Case: [2014] NZHC 577
Decision Date: 25 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corey Junior Taipari was sentenced for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after he pleaded guilty during his trial. The charge arose out of an incident where Taipari went to the victim's house with two swords and attacked the victim, causing severe injuries. Taipari was initially facing other charges, including attempted murder, but these were discharged following his guilty plea. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the seriousness of the injury, the use of a weapon, and the prior history of similar offending. The court found that a starting point of at least ten years imprisonment was justified, and after considering mitigating factors such as Taipari's age and guilty plea, the court imposed a sentence of six years and nine months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with an existing sentence. The court also imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of four years and three months to address the high risk of violent reoffending.

The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, to consider whether any aggravating or mitigating factors should be applied, and to decide on the form and length of the sentence, including whether a minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed. The court held that the starting point for sentencing should be at least ten years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence. The court found one aggravating factor—that the offence occurred while Taipari was on bail for a similar offence—and one mitigating factor—Taipari's guilty plea. The court decided on a cumulative sentence due to the different times and victims involved in the offending. The court also determined that a minimum term of imprisonment was necessary to address the high risk of reoffending.

Orders