IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2018-088-200

[2018] NZHC 3205

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICK DENNIS TARAWA

Hearing: 6 December 2018

Appearances:

RB Annandale and K McNeil for Crown W McKean and J Tulloch for Defendant

Sentence:

6 December 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v TARAWA [2018] NZHC 3205 [6 December 2018]

Introduction

[1] Patrick Dennis Tarawa: you appear for sentence on one charge of manslaughter,1 having pleaded guilty following acceptance of a sentence indication given on 26 October 2018.

[2] I acknowledge, first, the presence of Mr Vujcich’s family and I thank them, as Mr McKean has done, for their contribution to this sentencing process. I understand how difficult this is for them. I understand how difficult it has been and how difficult it will be to come to terms with what happened to a much-loved family member; but I am grateful to them for the contribution they have made, and particularly, David, I thank you for your expressions of hope for Mr Tarawa and his rehabilitation. I am grateful to you for that.

[3] I did indicate at the sentence indication hearing what I considered to be the value of restorative justice. I, too respect the Vujcich family’s decision not to participate in that process; that was entirely a matter for you and I understand the reasons why you may have felt that was not possible for you. I do commend you for your attitude throughout this very difficult time.

[4] I acknowledge also the presence of Mr Tarawa’s whānau and I thank you, Evelyn, for your contribution as well. It has been particularly helpful to me to understand something of Patrick’s background and his family life. I acknowledge and take into account what you have said about the sacrifices that he has made on behalf of other family members, and I can see why you tell me that what happened on this terrible day was out of character and not consistent with the young man that you know.

The background facts

[5] You are 22 years old, Mr Tarawa. On the 19th of January this year, you were at a petrol station in Kaikohe in your car with your pregnant partner, Tui Rihari, who was a passenger. As you began to turn onto the road, a white van cut across your lane, nearly hitting your vehicle. You had to brake to avoid a collision. You then followed

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 177, maximum penalty life imprisonment.

the van, which was driven by the victim, Mr Chris Vujcich, who was 58 years’ old. Mr Vujcich turned into his driveway some way down the road. Also in the van was Mr Vujcich’s 24-year-old son, Matthew.

[6] You parked your car a short distance away. Mr Vujcich approached your vehicle. You got out and argued with him about the near miss. Mr Vujcich told Matthew to move the van up the driveway, which he did,…

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 Tarawa

Details

AGLC: R v Tarawa [2018] NZHC 3205
Case: [2018] NZHC 3205
Decision Date: 6 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Patrick Dennis Tarawa appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to manslaughter. Tarawa, aged 22 at the time of the incident, had struck Chris Vujcich twice, resulting in Vujcich's death from injuries sustained when his head hit the concrete. The court considered various factors in determining an appropriate sentence, including the violent nature of the offence, the harm caused, Tarawa's opportunities to reflect and de-escalate the situation, and his remorse. The starting point for sentencing was set at three years and nine months in prison, but was adjusted for mitigating factors such as Tarawa's compliance with electronic monitoring bail, his remorse, and his youth. The final sentence imposed was ten months of home detention and 400 hours of community work. The court considered this sentence appropriate as it provided an opportunity for Tarawa's rehabilitation while balancing the purposes and principles of sentencing.

The legal issues in this case centred around determining an appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors present. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, particularly the need to denounce the offending, hold the offender accountable, and assist in their rehabilitation. The court also had to balance these purposes against the potential deterrent effect of a prison sentence, and consider whether a less restrictive sentence could adequately achieve the purposes of sentencing. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of home detention and community work would appropriately address the purposes and principles of sentencing in this case.

Orders