R v Taumata - [2023] NZHC 2099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2019-092-8912

[2023] NZHC 2099

THE KING

v

RANAPERA TAUMATA

Hearing: 7 August 2023

Appearances:

S B Manning and M J R Blaschke for the Crown A M M Schulze for the Defendant

Judgment:

7 August 2023

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Taumata, you appear for sentencing today having been found guilty of one charge of murder1 and one charge of assault with intent to injure following a jury trial in Napier on 14 June 2023.2

The offending

[2] The facts of the offending are not in dispute. Given the extent of the evidence we heard at trial, including the CCTV footage, I only give a brief summary here.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 172 — maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Section 193 — maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment. The victim in both charges is Ms Taylor-Jade Hira.

R v TAUMATA [2023] NZHC 2099 [7 August 2023]

[3] The offending took place in the evening and early hours of 14 and 15 August 2019. You and Ms Taylor-Jade Hira had been in a relationship for about 18 months by that stage. You were effectively living together in the sleepout at your family’s home.

[4] The CCTV footage recorded that in the early hours of the morning you and Ms Hira went to get McDonald’s at about 12.30 am. When you returned a short time later and both got out of the car you kicked her. Then you kicked her again shortly afterwards as you were walking towards the sleepout and that caused her to fall to the ground and spill the food she was carrying. You kicked her several more times and threw her to the ground. She then followed you to the sleepout.

[5] At about 12.55 am you pulled Ms Hira out of the sleepout by her hair, threw her to the ground and returned to the sleepout. You would not allow her back in for several minutes.

[6] Over the next 17 minutes or so, inside the sleepout you inflicted a prolonged and violent assault on Ms Hira, rendering her unconscious and injured. At about
1.15 am you dragged her outside; she appeared to be unconscious. You tossed her to the ground. You then proceeded to throw items of clothing and bedding outside around where her body lay. A few minutes later you again grabbed her and dragged her by the hair back into the sleepout.

[7] About 10 minutes later you came out and went into the main house where your family were sleeping. You alerted them that something was wrong with Ms Hira. Another 20 minutes or so elapsed and you while your family were seen to be going in and out of the sleepout carrying out various tasks. Then you carried Ms Hira’s body to the car. With your mother and sister, you drove her to the hospital. She was unresponsive at…

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 Taumata

Details

AGLC: R v Taumata [2023] NZHC 2099
Case: [2023] NZHC 2099
Decision Date: 7 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ranapera Taumata was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for one count of murder and one count of assault with intent to injure, following a jury trial in Napier. The court considered the legal issues, including the appropriate starting point for the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) and the need for uplifts and discounts to reflect factors personal to the defendant. The court concluded that the starting point should be 12 years' imprisonment, with an uplift of 12 months for previous convictions and an overall discount of two years and six months for personal mitigating factors, resulting in a final MPI of 10 years and six months. The assault with intent to injure charge was sentenced concurrently with the murder charge at 14 months' imprisonment. The final orders of the court were that the defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charge, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years and six months, and 14 months' imprisonment for the assault with intent to injure charge, to be served concurrently.

Orders