R v Taulapapa

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHEO

CRI-2017-004-012360 [2018] NZHC 2770

BETWEEN THE QUEEN

AND

SYDNEE SHAUNNA TAULAPAPA Defendant

On the papers

Appearances:

B Dickey for Crown
A Creswell for Defendant

Judgment:

25 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 October 2018 at 2.30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v TAULAPAPA [2018] NZHC 2770 [25 October 2018]

[1] On 27 April 2018, Woodhouse J sentenced Sydnee Shaunna Taulapapa on charges of kidnapping and burglary, by discharging her without conviction.1 The order was made upon the conditions that Ms Taulapapa should pay reparation of $2,000 to the parents of the baby who was kidnapped, if they wished to accept it, or pay that sum to a suitable charity. A further condition was that Ms Taulapapa was to undertake 400 hours of voluntary community work.

[2] The parents of the baby chose not to accept the reparation sum, which

Ms Taulapapa then paid directly to an agreed charity.

[3] Because the reparations payment was not made into Court, however,

Ms Taulapapa remains liable to enforcement action.

[4] Woodhouse J has since retired, so the matter has been brought to me for consideration. To avoid enforcement in circumstances where Ms Taulapapa has complied with the intent of the Judge's order, I recall the sentence condition imposed at [71] (a) of the sentencing notes and replace it, retrospectively, with an order that
Ms Taulapapa shall pay reparation of $2,000 directly to a charity concerned with the interests of new-born children or young people. I record that she has complied with that order.

[5] In doing so, it is my intention that steps will be taken to ensure that the reparations collections procedure, based on Woodhouse J's order, is discontinued.

...............................................

Toogood J

1 R v TAULAPAPA [2018] NZHC 834 [27 April 2018].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over by Toogood J, heard an application from the Crown to enforce a reparations payment made by Sydnee Shaunna Taulapapa, who was sentenced for kidnapping and burglary. The defendant was sentenced by Woodhouse J on 27 April 2018, with the condition that she pay $2,000 to the parents of the kidnapped baby, or to a suitable charity if they refused. The parents declined the payment, and the defendant subsequently made the payment directly to a charity. However, because the payment was not made through the Court, enforcement action was still possible. The case was brought before Toogood J to address the issue of enforcement when the defendant had already complied with the intent of the original order.

The central legal issue was whether enforcement action could be taken against the defendant despite her compliance with the spirit of the reparations payment order. The court had to decide whether the defendant's direct payment to a charity satisfied the intent of the original order, and if so, whether enforcement action was still warranted. The court also needed to consider the procedural aspects of ensuring that the reparations payment was properly processed and recorded.

Toogood J determined that the defendant had indeed complied with the intent of the original order by making the reparations payment directly to a charity. The judge recalled the condition imposed by Woodhouse J and replaced it with an order that the defendant pay $2,000 directly to a charity concerned with the interests of new-born children or young people. The court noted that the defendant had already complied with this revised order. Toogood J intended to ensure that the reparations collection procedure was discontinued, as the defendant had fulfilled the order's intent.

The court ordered that the defendant shall pay $2,000 directly to a charity concerned with the interests of new-born children or young people, and that enforcement action should be discontinued. The court also directed that steps be taken to ensure that the reparations collection procedure was no longer in effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

On the papers
Appearances:	B Dickey for Crown A Creswell for Defendant
Judgment:	25 October 2018