R v Tawa - [2020] NZHC 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2018-087-002032

[2019] NZHC 95

THE QUEEN

v

HIRA MOANAROA TAWA

Hearing: 7 February 2020 (Heard at Rotorua)

Appearances:

R W Jenson for Crown

G Tomlinson for Defendant

Judgment:

7 February 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v HIRA MOANAROA TAWA [2019] NZHC 95 [7 February 2020]

[1] Mr Tawa, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on a charge of manslaughter. The charge was laid after an incident that occurred on the afternoon of 12 November 2018 at Taneatua. I was the Judge who presided over your trial so I have a familiarity with the facts that enables me to set them out without the ned to refer to any summary. I also need to explain the reasons underlying a factual finding that is important to the sentence to be imposed. This relates to the basis on which the jury found you guilty of manslaughter.

Background

[2] The evidence at trial revealed that on 12 November 2018, you were in the company of your older brother, who is the victim of your offending. You were in and about Taneatua socialising and drinking. In the late afternoon you went to a residential address where further drinking occurred. You say that at this point your brother became abusive to both you and others in the room. It seems that at this point also he and others began consuming methamphetamine.

[3] You decided to remove yourself from the situation by driving home. You went out to your car and began to drive off down the road. Your brother was not content for this to occur. He followed you out and pulled the driver’s door of the car open. As the car moved off down the road he stood on the front driver’s sill of the vehicle and began kicking and punching you. You continued to drive away notwithstanding this attack.

[4] Your brother was evidently able to hang on for some time, but eventually he fell off the vehicle in the vicinity of a “T” intersection at the end of the street. He is likely to have sustained some injuries as a result of this incident, but it is impossible now on the basis of the evidence to say exactly which of the injuries that he finally sustained were caused by it. The Crown accepts, however, that you bear no blame for anything that occurred up to the point where your brother fell off the vehicle. It accepts you were merely trying to extricate yourself from a situation in which your brother was being both obnoxious and violent towards you.

[5] In the ordinary course of events you would have turned right at the intersection and driven home. Rather than do that, however, you drove up onto the kerb at the end of the street and you then put your vehicle into a violent left hand turn over the…

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 Tawa

Details

AGLC: R v Tawa [2019] NZHC 95
Case: [2020] NZHC 95
Decision Date: 7 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court involved a defendant, Hira Moanaroa Tawa, who was found guilty of manslaughter following an incident on 12 November 2018. The defendant had been socialising and drinking with his older brother in Taneatua when an altercation ensued. In an attempt to leave the situation, the defendant got into his car and drove off, with his brother clinging to the car. The brother eventually fell off the vehicle and was subsequently run over by the defendant's car, which had made a sharp turn onto the wrong side of the road. The central legal issue was the basis on which the jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter. The court ruled that the jury must have based its verdict on the defendant's driving constituting a major departure from the standard of a reasonable person, rather than on a deliberate act to cause harm.

The court determined that the defendant's driving, although not prolonged, was a significant departure from what would be expected in that situation, particularly because the defendant knew his brother was in the vicinity. The starting point for the sentence was set at four years imprisonment, taking into account factors such as the defendant's age, good character, and genuine remorse. Several mitigating factors, such as the defendant's offer to plead guilty, were also considered. The final sentence imposed was 12 months of home detention, 200 hours of community work, and a 12-month disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence.

Orders