R v Tanawhea - [2022] NZHC 180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI 2021-01906

[2022] NZHC 180

THE QUEEN

v

VANESSA HINEMOA TE HAU TANAWHEA

Hearing: 11 February 2022

Appearances:

B R Smith for Crown G Boot for Defendant

Sentence:

11 February 2022

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

One c
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Gavin Boot Law, Hamilton

R v TE HAU TANAWHEA [2022] NZHC 180 [11 February 2022]

Facts of offending

[1] Ms Te Hau Tanawhea, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death.

[2] The facts of the offending are briefly set out in the Crown summary of facts to which you have pleaded guilty. You were in a relationship with the deceased victim for a short period of time. On 30 December 2020 you and he were at a residential address at Kawerau. At around 7 am an argument developed and you went to leave the address in your vehicle. On multiple occasions the victim climbed onto the bonnet as you drove away from the address in the vehicle. You accelerated the vehicle in a westerly direction along Newall Street with the victim still on the bonnet. He came off the bonnet and landed on the road near the kerb at the intersection of Newall and Whittaker Streets. The fall caused his head to strike the road with significant force to cause a skull fracture. At 7.10 am the victim was located by a member of the public and emergency services attended the scene. However, the victim had suffered critical injuries and died at the scene.

[3] The post-mortem examination identified a skull fracture caused by blunt trauma consistent with striking the road. The condition of the victim’s body was reported by the attending pathologist as consistent with being thrown or falling from a vehicle in movement.

[4] When spoken to by police your explanation was that the deceased climbed onto the vehicle and you drove away at speed because you were upset and angry that he had become aggressive. You told police the victim sat up on the bonnet and then pushed himself off the car. You saw him lying on the road, panicked and carried on driving.

[5] You told the police you drove away at speed but there is no evidence you drove at an excess speed that day. Apart from continuing to drive while the victim was on the car bonnet there is no evidence there was anything else that was dangerous or reckless about the way you drove that day.

[6] There is no evidence that you realised the victim was seriously injured when you saw him lying on the road. There is no evidence that your failure to stop and help him contributed to his death. I note he was found, and emergency services help was sought shortly after you had left the scene. There is also no evidence as to whether the victim fell from the vehicle,…

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 Tanawhea

Details

AGLC: R v Tanawhea [2022] NZHC 180
Case: [2022] NZHC 180
Decision Date: 11 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, the case of R v Te Hau Tanawhea involved the sentencing of Vanessa Hinemoa Te Hau Tanawhea for the offence of dangerous driving causing death. The court heard the arguments from both the Crown, represented by B R Smith, and the defendant, represented by G Boot. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Tanawhea, who had pleaded guilty to the charge. The court also had to consider various mitigating and aggravating factors, including the background and personal circumstances of the defendant, and the impact of her actions on the victim's family.

The court acknowledged the tragic circumstances of the case, where Tanawhea had driven away while the victim clung to the bonnet of her car, ultimately resulting in the victim's death. The court recognised the difficult personal circumstances Tanawhea faced, including a history of family violence and abuse, which influenced her actions on the day of the incident. Despite these mitigating factors, the court found that Tanawhea's decision to continue driving, knowing the victim was on the bonnet, constituted a serious breach of her duty of care.

After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that a starting point of three years' imprisonment was appropriate. The court applied discounts for Tanawhea's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, good character, and cultural factors, resulting in a final sentence of 11 months' home detention. Additionally, the court imposed a two-year disqualification from driving.

The court's reasoning and outcome reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances of the defendant, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The final orders of the court included a sentence of 11 months' home detention and a two-year driving disqualification.

Orders