R v Taki - [2022] NZHC 1801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2021-025-1396

[2022] NZHC 1801

THE QUEEN

v

MANAIA MICHAEL TAKI

Hearing: 26 July 2022

Appearances:

W T Chapman for the Crown H T Young for Defendant

Judgment:

26 July 2022

ORAL SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J

[1] Mr Taki, I am going to ask you to stand, please, for a moment. I will ask you shortly to be seated again while I explain my sentence to you. Towards the end, I will then ask you to stand again when I deliver the sentence, when I tell you what the sentence will be.

[2]So, for now, please sit down.

Introduction

[3] Manaia Michael Taki, you appear for sentence on one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, to which you pleaded guilty and were convicted

R v TAKI [2022] NZHC 1801 [26 July 2022]

on 7 June 2022.1 You have also been issued with a first strike warning under the three strikes regime.

The offending

[4]You have agreed with the summary of facts which I will now refer to.

[5]The victim in this matter is the brother of your partner.

[6] Your offending occurred at the address of your victim’s mother in Winton, Southland, at about 1 pm on 6 December 2021. At that address were your partner, your two-month-old baby, the victim, the victim’s partner and the victim’s mother.

[7] The victim told his sister (that is, your partner) that you had been saying she was a bad mother. Your partner confronted you about that accusation. As a result, you confronted the victim about it. Heated words were exchanged. The victim challenged you to a fight.

[8] You left the house and went to your car, which was parked across the road. You took out a .22 firearm. It is a ten-shot semi-automatic rifle that had been cut down to approximately 55 centimetres in length and had a pistol grip. You were not a current holder of a firearms licence. You returned to the property and you fired either two or three rounds in the air. You then went back to your car and took off.

[9] You revved your engine and did a number of skids in the neighbouring area. You then returned to the address and drove backwards and forwards in the victim’s driveway while revving your engine. You later told police you were intending to crash into the rear of the victim’s vehicle but had decided against it. You then reversed your vehicle out and parked it on the footpath by the driveway.

[10] The victim came out of the house. Further heated words were again exchanged between the two of you. Both of you were challenging each other to approach.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1) – maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[11] As the victim came towards your vehicle, you pointed the .22 through the front passenger seat window which was wound down. You…

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 Taki

Details

AGLC: R v Taki [2022] NZHC 1801
Case: [2022] NZHC 1801
Decision Date: 26 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Manaia Michael Taki, the defendant was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court heard the case and delivered its judgment on 26 July 2022. The key issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the aggravating factors of the crime and the personal circumstances of the defendant.

The court found that the defendant's offending was of extreme violence, with premeditation and use of a weapon, and that it resulted in serious injury to the victim. The court assessed the seriousness of the offending and determined a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, which was towards the top of Band 2 of the sentencing bands outlined in R v Taueki. The court also considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, and prospects of rehabilitation. Based on these factors, the court applied discounts for the defendant's youth, cultural background, and guilty plea, leading to a final sentence of three years' imprisonment.

The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm used in the offence. Overall, the court's decision balanced the need to hold the defendant accountable for their serious and violent crime with the mitigating factors of the defendant's personal circumstances, resulting in a sentence of three years' imprisonment.

Orders