R v Taulapapa - [2018] NZHC 834

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF

WITNESSES/VICTIMS/CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-12360

[2018] NZHC 834

THE QUEEN

v

SYDNEE SHAUNNA TAULAPAPA

Hearing: 27 April 2018

Appearances:

K Lummis for the Crown

A Cresswell for Ms Taulapapa

Sentencing:

27 April 2018

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms K Lummis, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Ms A Cresswell, Barrister, Auckland

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

Introduction

[1] Ms Taulapapa, you may remain seated while I explain the sentence I am going to impose.

[2] You appear for sentence, of course, having pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and burglary.

[3]I need to explain the sentence not just to you, but also to the parents of the baby

– the victim – and to the community. For that reason I need to summarise things that you already know. I also need to cover a reasonably complex factual background and considerable diversity in the submissions on your behalf and those of the Crown, and this will take a bit of time.

The relevant facts

[4] Firstly, the facts – and I provide only an outline – and this is taken from the agreed summary of facts. It is the agreed summary of facts worked out between counsel to which you pleaded guilty.

[5] You were jointly charged with Nadene Manukau-Togiavalu with the kidnapping and burglary. You and Ms Manukau-Togiavalu are related – your parents are cousins. Ms Manukau-Togiavalu faces other charges and is being separately dealt with in the District Court. In relation to the charges, Ms Manukau-Togiavalu is undoubtedly the principal offender. I do not use that in a legal sense. She manipulated everything that occurred and persuaded you. She got involved in all of this, and brought you into it, for her own purposes.

[6] In December 2016 Ms Manukau-Togiavalu falsely claimed to family and friends that she was pregnant. The reasons for that are not of concern in the sentencing of you. She maintained this pretence through to August 2017, when the offences were committed.

[7] In May 2017 she applied online for a job as a nanny. You were then living in Australia. Two references were provided, one from another cousin and one, on the

face of it, from you. Ms Manukau-Togiavalu had sought your permission to use your email account. She sent an email on your account, purporting to be from you, as a reference. In the agreed summary of facts you acknowledged that you provided your email account details for this purpose, but what is not clear is what you understood precisely Ms Manukau-Togiavalu was doing. But it must be acknowledged that you realised that what she was doing was not straightforward. I must say, in relation to this matter that I do consider it is far removed from the matters of…

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 Taulapapa

Details

AGLC: R v Taulapapa [2018] NZHC 834
Case: [2018] NZHC 834
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Sydnee Shaunna Taulapapa was charged with kidnapping and burglary, which she pleaded guilty to. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered the offender's age, lack of previous convictions, and remorse displayed, as well as the cultural background of the offender. The court also weighed the aggravating factors, such as the premeditation and planning of the offence, the vulnerability of the baby, and the emotional harm caused to the victims. The starting point for sentencing was determined to be between 12 to 18 months imprisonment. However, the court decided to discharge Taulapapa without conviction, taking into account the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction and the gravity of the offence. The court ordered Taulapapa to pay $2,000 in reparation and complete 400 hours of voluntary community work within six months.

The final orders of the court were that Sydnee Shaunna Taulapapa be discharged without conviction for both kidnapping and burglary charges, with the conditions that she pays $2,000 in reparation to the victims if they accept it, and completes 400 hours of voluntary community work within six months. Convictions entered on the guilty pleas are vacated, along with the first strike warning given at the time.

Orders