R v Tau'Atevalu - [2014] NZHC 2770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-10053 [2014] NZHC 2770

THE QUEEN

v

WALTER TAU'ATEVALU

Hearing: 7 November 2014

Appearances:

R McCoubrey for Crown
G Newell for Defendant

Sentence:

7 November 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v TAU'ATEVALU [2014] NZHC 2770 [7 November 2014]

[1] Mr Tau’atevalu, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and assaulting your wife. The maximum penalty for the most serious charge that of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so is 14 years imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the other charge is six months imprisonment.

[2] I heard all of the facts that gave rise to these charges at your trial. You offered to plead guilty at an early stage to the charge for which you appear for sentence today, but the Crown proceeded with a charge of attempted murder against you. The jury found you not guilty on that charge.

Background

[3] The charges follow your attendance at a sporting function on the evening of

7 September 2013 at a sports arena in South Auckland. You were attending that event with your estranged wife to celebrate the end of year prize-giving for a rugby league club with which you were both involved. During the course of the evening it is clear that you became angry about interaction you perceived to be taking place between your wife and another man. You accosted her about this verbally during the evening. At about 11 pm you insisted that she leave with you, and that you would take her home in her vehicle.

[4] It is quite clear from the evidence that she did not want to leave with you. She had made her own plans to be with her friends that evening, but at your insistence and with physical aggression by you, she was bundled into her vehicle. It is also clear that there was some physical violence at this point, in the sense of you attempting to hit her or punch her round the face. This was observed by a good friend of hers, who insisted on getting into the car in the front seat with your wife. You then began driving the vehicle away.

[5] Within 40 or 50 metres, however, you stopped the vehicle and got out. At this point your wife tried to get out and run away, but you prevented her from escaping. She then got back into the vehicle and you began punching her about the face. You also persuaded the friend at about this point that she should leave the vehicle. You then drove the vehicle away from the sporting arena.

[6] The friend who had got out of the car saw a police car arrive, and alerted the police officer in that vehicle to the fact that you had assaulted your wife and driven her away. The police officer was Sergeant Tate, your ultimate victim that night. He…

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 Tau'Atevalu

Details

AGLC: R v Tau'Atevalu [2014] NZHC 2770
Case: [2014] NZHC 2770
Decision Date: 7 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tau'Atevalu, the defendant, Walter Tau'Atevalu, was sentenced for causing grievous bodily harm with intent and assaulting his wife. The court heard that Tau'Atevalu had become angry during a sporting function and assaulted his wife, leading to a confrontation with a police officer who intervened. Tau'Atevalu attacked the officer, resulting in severe injuries, including broken bones and brain injury. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing and whether a minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed.

The court considered several factors in determining the sentence. It identified the use of severe violence, the resulting harm to the officer, and the attack on a police officer as significant aggravating factors. The court also acknowledged Tau'Atevalu's genuine expressions of remorse and his early guilty plea as mitigating factors. After weighing these factors, the court decided on a starting point of nine years and three months imprisonment, reduced by six months for remorse and two years three months for the early guilty plea, resulting in a total sentence of six years and six months. Additionally, the court imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of three years and three months to ensure adequate deterrence, denunciation, and community protection.

The final orders of the court were that Tau'Atevalu be sentenced to six years and six months imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent and two months for assaulting his wife, to be served concurrently, with a mandatory minimum term of three years and three months for the grievous bodily harm charge.

Orders