R v Taunga - [2017] NZHC 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-8634 [2017] NZHC 1680

THE QUEEN

v

TEINA TAUNGA

Hearing: 20 July 2017

Appearances:

Y V Yelavich and A F Devathasan for Crown
P K Hamlin for Defendant

Sentence:

20 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Crown Solicitor, Manukau

Counsel: P K Hamlin, Auckland

R v TAUNGA [2017] NZHC 1680 [20 July 2017]

[1] Mr Taunga, today I am sentencing you for the manslaughter of Gary Moore on 31 July 2016. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. I gave you a first strike warning when you were convicted last month.

[2] I shall start by setting out the events leading to Mr Moore’s death.

[3] Then I shall turn to the first step in the sentencing process which is to set a

“starting point” that reflects the wrongdoing in your offending.

[4] The second step is to take account of matters that are personal to you and which may require me to increase or reduce the sentence otherwise established by the starting point. That includes your offer to plead guilty at an early stage.

[5] So what this means, Mr Taunga, is that you will not know your sentence until

I get to the very end.

Background

[6] You and Mr Moore worked together and were good friends, even though he was at least 25 years older than you.

[7] On Saturday, 30 July 2016, Mr Moore asked you over to the house he shared with his partner, Ms Stills. You and your partner, Ms Christian, arrived there at about 10 pm. You, Mr Moore and Ms Christian went into Mr Moore’s garage to play pool, and started drinking alcohol.

[8] Ms Christian’s evidence was that you and Mr Moore were getting on well, having a “bromance” but became louder and more boisterous the more you had to drink. She said that there was some pushing and shoving and swearing as the night progressed and, at about 4 am, she went to her car to sleep.

[9] After this, you and Mr Moore had some cannabis and methamphetamine. It appears Mr Moore was the one who supplied that methamphetamine.

[10] You told the police that Mr Moore was pushing and teasing you, he being a better pool player and that there was a scuffle between you, after which you carried on playing pool. Then there was a second, far more serious altercation or fight, the upshot of which was that you put Mr Moore on the ground, punched him several times, hard, to the head, you had Mr Moore pinned him down and you then strangled him around the neck, with your bare hands.

[11] You said to the police that you had your hands around Mr Moore’s neck for

“two minutes, five minutes”.

[12] Dr Glengarry’s evidence was that you must have applied “significant” force to Mr Moore’s neck to do what you did. She could not be exact about timing, but…

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 Taunga

Details

AGLC: R v Taunga [2017] NZHC 1680
Case: [2017] NZHC 1680
Decision Date: 20 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Teina Taunga was convicted of the manslaughter of Gary Moore and was sentenced by Peters J in the High Court of New Zealand. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the nature of the offending, the circumstances, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The court had to establish a "starting point" for the sentence by comparing the offending with similar cases and then consider any personal factors that might warrant an increase or decrease in the sentence.

Peters J started by examining the events leading to Mr Moore’s death, emphasising the violence used by Taunga, including the significant force applied during the strangulation. The court considered the disparity in size and age between Taunga and Mr Moore, as well as the extensive nature of the assault. After reviewing several cases involving manslaughter by strangulation, the court set a starting point of eight years' imprisonment. The court then considered Taunga’s previous convictions for violent offences, which led to an additional 12 months in the sentence, bringing it to nine years. Despite mitigating factors such as Taunga's remorse and offer to plead guilty, the court reduced the sentence by 20%, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and three months. Additionally, the court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and six months to ensure adequate deterrence and community protection.

The final orders of the court were that Teina Taunga be sentenced to seven years and three months’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of Gary Moore, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and six months.

Orders