JASON TAUEKI SHAWN DAVID RIDLEY RICHARD PUNA ROBERTS
Hearing:17 February 2005
Court:Anderson P, Glazebrook, Hammond, William Young and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:A J S Snell for Appellant Taueki
E C Bulger for Appellant Ridley G J King for Appellant Roberts J C Pike for Crown
Judgment:30 June 2005
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AMr Taueki’s appeal against sentence is dismissed.
BMr Ridley’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of ten years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years is quashed and replaced with a sentence of eight years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.
CMr Roberts’ appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
REASONS
(Given by O’Regan J)
Table of Contents
Para No
Introduction [1] R v Hereora [5] GUIDELINES FOR SENTENCES FOR GBH OFFENCES [9] Objectives [10] Sentencing Act 2002 [13] Approach [14] Overseas material [18] Should overall sentencing levels be increased? [19] Change of approach [22] Factors relevant to the setting of the starting point [26] Matters contributing of the seriousness of GBH offending [31] Matters reducing the seriousness of GBH offending [32]
Matters which should not be seen as reducing the seriousness of GBH offending [33] Bands [34] Band one [36] Band two [38] Band three [40] Flexibility [42] Circumstances of the offender [44] Other sentencing principles [46] Minimum periods of imprisonment [47] Leave to apply for home detention [59] Replacement of Hereora [60] THE APPEALS [61] Approach [62] Mr Taueki [63] Mr Ridley [84] Mr Roberts [109]
Introduction
[1] This judgment deals with a number of appeals which were heard together by a Full Court on 17 February 2005. We have already delivered judgment on two Solicitor-General appeals which were heard at the same time: R v Naime and Aloniu CA428/04; CA429/04 30 May 2005. We heard these cases together because they are all cases involving serious violent offending and they provide an opportunity for the Court to review the continuing application of its decision in R v Hereora [1986] 2 NZLR 164 as a guideline case for sentences for such offending. The Court issued a memorandum to counsel prior to the hearing notifying them of its intention in this regard. We received helpful submissions from all counsel (including Mr Chand and Ms Philson for Mr Aloniu and Ms Sapolu and Ms Ward for Mr Naime) for which we express our gratitude.
[2] All of the appellants other than Mr Ridley were convicted of offences under s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. Mr Ridley was convicted of an offence under s 191(1) of the Crimes Act.
[3] Section 188(1) provides:
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.
[4] Section 191(1) provides:
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who with intent-
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 Taueki
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174
Case
[2005] NZCA 174
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This judgment deals with a number of appeals heard together by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The court was required to decide the appropriate guidelines for sentencing in cases of serious violent offending, particularly grievous bodily harm (GBH) offences, and to review the application of these guidelines in three specific cases. The court established new sentencing bands for GBH offences, replacing the previous approach outlined in Hereora, and provided detailed criteria for assessing the seriousness of the offending and determining appropriate starting points. The court applied these guidelines to the individual cases, considering the specific circumstances and mitigating or aggravating factors. In the first case, Mr Taueki's appeal against his sentence was dismissed, as the court found the sentence appropriate given the seriousness of the offending. In the second case, Mr Ridley's appeal against his sentence was allowed, and the original sentence was replaced with a sentence of eight years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years. In the third case, Mr Roberts' appeals against both his conviction and sentence were dismissed, as the court found the conviction and sentence to be justified.