R v Talagi - [2025] NZHC 854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-006857

[2025] NZHC 854

THE KING

v

DARIUSH TALAGI

Hearing: 10 April 2025

Counsel:

AM McClintock for Crown

JM Scott and CG Wright for Defendant

Judgment:

10 April 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.
Public Defence Service, Auckland.

R v TALAGI [2025] NZHC 854 [10 April 2025]

[1] I begin by acknowledging those in court today here on behalf of Mr Tuuholoaki and also on behalf of Mr Alexander, and of course on behalf of Mr Talagi, and I thank you for your quiet and respectful participation. I acknowledge this is a difficult and painful process.

The case

[2] Dariush Talagi, you were found guilty by a jury of wounding Jarome Alexander with intent to cause him really serious bodily harm; and of murdering Sione Tuuholoaki. You are now for sentence for both crimes.

[3] It is common ground I must impose life imprisonment, which carries a minimum period of 10 years’ imprisonment. What is not common ground is whether your minimum period should be longer than 10 years. The Crown argues it should be much, much longer. You argue, through your lawyers, otherwise. Much of what I say today is ultimately about this issue.

[4] I should make clear, however, for the benefit of those watching on and for the benefit of others who may read about the case, that life imprisonment means potentially just that. Typically, a person is not released when their minimum period expires. The minimum period says nothing about the value of someone’s life.

[5]I turn to the facts.

The facts

[6] On the evening of 3 August 2023, you were in the Auckland CBD with your partner and her brother, whom for convenience, I refer to as your brother-in-law. For reasons that remain at large, you had a loaded pistol in a small bag around your waist. Also in the CBD were Mr Tuuholoaki, Mr Alexander, and several of their colleagues. You were unknown to them. Mr Tuuholoaki was 26 years of age; you were two years younger. You had been socialising, as had Mr Tuuholoaki and those with him.

[7] At approximately 11.30 pm, you encountered Mr Tuuholoaki’s group on Queen Street. Words were exchanged, including something uncomplimentary about

your partner. You took exception to that remark or to those remarks. You walked quickly towards the other group as they came towards you.

[8] You made it clear to them you had a pistol. That is apparent from closed-circuit television footage which captured the entirety of the incident. You were goading them, and they were goading you.

[9] Members of their group encouraged you to a one-on-one fight; I should add, a fight without weapons. One of them grabbed you and took you to the ground. He punched you repeatedly to the head. I do not doubt his violence was, at least in part, intended to prevent you from using 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 Talagi

Details

AGLC: R v Talagi [2025] NZHC 854
Case: [2025] NZHC 854
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dariush Talagi was found guilty of the murder of Sione Tuuholoaki and wounding Jarome Alexander with intent to cause serious harm. The sentencing phase of the trial focused on determining the appropriate minimum period for Talagi's life imprisonment term. Talagi's legal team argued for a minimum period of 10 years, while the Crown sought a much longer period. Downs J, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, settled on a starting point of 12 years' imprisonment. This period was influenced by the execution-style manner in which Tuuholoaki was killed, but was reduced due to the violence Talagi experienced prior to the murder. The wounding of Alexander, although involving excessive self-defence, led to an additional one-year uplift to the minimum period. Downs J concluded that a minimum period of 12 years was appropriate, reflecting the gravity of Talagi's crimes but also considering his difficult upbringing and late expression of remorse.

The court found Talagi guilty of the murder of Tuuholoaki and the wounding of Alexander, and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder, with a minimum period of 12 years. Talagi also received a concurrent sentence of five years' imprisonment for the wounding of Alexander. The decision highlighted the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, as well as the potential impact of life imprisonment, which often means a person is not released upon completion of the minimum period.

Orders