Legal Research
Cases
R v Te Ahuru

R v Te Ahuru

Case [2024] NZHC 1851 10 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-007548

[2024] NZHC 1851

THE KING

v

TIPENE TE AHURU

Hearing: 10 July 2024

Appearances:

L P Radich and S R Bicknell for Crown

K A Stoikoff and D J Taumihau for Defendant

Sentenced:

10 July 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 July 2024 at 3.30 pm.

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v TE AHURU [2024] NZHC 1851 [10 July 2024]

[1] Mr Te Ahuru, after a jury trial before me, you were found guilty of your son’s murder. Amaziah was only three months old when you killed him.

[2] Ms Stoikoff has realistically accepted on your behalf that a sentence of life imprisonment is inevitable.1 She also responsibly concedes that you will be subject to a minimum period of seventeen years’ imprisonment, before being eligible for parole.2 In these sentencing notes I will explain why that is the sentence I am required to direct.

[3] I wish to acknowledge the presence of Amaziah’s mother and other whanau in the courtroom today. Losing Amaziah and in such tragic circumstances is truly devastating. As Amaziah’s grandmother has said, Mr Te Ahuru’s actions have taken Amaziah away from his whanau, hapu and iwi and no sentence the Court can impose will bring him back. My deepest sympathy to you.

Facts

[4]I am going to start by outlining the facts of the offending.

[5] Amaziah was born on 13 June 2022, five weeks early. At the time you killed him, he had the developmental age of a nine-week-old baby. In September 2022 you were living with your partner and Amaziah in a small two-bedroomed flat together with your partner’s two young boys for whom you were their Dad.

[6] I want to acknowledge and record my utmost respect to Amaziah’s mother for her moving account in her victim impact statement of the background to your relationship and the stresses in both your lives leading up to that terrible day.

[7] On 18 September 2022 Amaziah had been restless and difficult to settle. In the early evening, your partner left you in sole charge of Amaziah while she went to the laundromat. Based on the timing of several attempts you made to get hold of your partner by phone, it is evident that within five minutes of her leaving the house you had inflicted the fatal injuries that caused Amaziah’s death.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.
2 Section 104.

[8] When you connected with each other some 20 minutes after your first call, you told your partner that “baby wasn’t breathing properly.” She told you to hang up and call an ambulance. On arriving home, your partner called 111 immediately and attempted CPR. Paramedics found Amaziah not breathing. They were eventually able to get a pulse back, however Amaziah’s life support was ultimately turned off 10 days later.

[9]…

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 Te Ahuru

Details

AGLC: R v Te Ahuru [2024] NZHC 1851
Case: [2024] NZHC 1851
Decision Date: 10 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr. Tipene Te Ahuru, who was found guilty of murdering his three-month-old son, Amaziah, by the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. The court sentenced Mr. Te Ahuru to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. The key legal issue was determining the appropriate minimum non-parole period under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court considered the nature of the offence, which involved extreme violence inflicted on a vulnerable infant, and the absence of any mitigating factors apart from the offender's remorse.

The court acknowledged several aggravating factors, including the high level of violence, the significant loss and harm caused, the breach of trust, and the delay in seeking medical help. Despite the offender's remorse and the stressful conditions leading up to the offence, these factors did not mitigate the severity of the crime. The court concluded that the presumptive 17-year minimum non-parole period was appropriate and not manifestly unjust. The decision was consistent with similar cases involving the murder of infants by caregivers.

The final orders of the court were that Mr. Te Ahuru be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. The court expressed its deepest sympathy for the loss experienced by Amaziah's family and the wider community.

Orders