R v Teo - [2023] NZHC 700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-5866

[2023] NZHC 700

THE KING

v

MESI TEO

Hearing: 27 March 2023

Appearances:

A Devathasan and R McDonald for the Crown Mr Teo as self-represented defendant

T A Simmonds, standby counsel Mr Le’au’anae, co-standby counsel

Sentence:

27 March 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF ROBINSON J

[Redacted]

Solicitors/counsel:
KFW, Auckland
T Simmonds, Auckland P Le’au’anae, Auckland

R v MESI TEO [2023] NZHC 700 [27 March 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mesi Moleli (Mesi) Teo, you appear before the Court today for sentence having been found guilty after a trial by jury of manslaughter1 in relation to the death of Kimleang Youn, and of the related charge of failing to stop to ascertain whether he was injured.2

[2] I acknowledge that Kimleang Youn’s family are present here today in Court through the CCTV. I acknowledge in particular his mother Mrs Youn who has as we have all heard prepared a victim impact statement, which has been read today.

[3] Mrs Youn, in your victim impact statement you express your heartfelt grief at the loss of your son. There are of course no words that I can say that will relieve you of the pain of your loss, and the tragedy of your son’s death. He was 28 years old when he died. He was your much-loved son, a brother to your other children, a nephew and a cousin. He was a good friend to others.

[4] Today’s sentencing and the penalties that I will impose in relation to Kimleang’s death will hopefully at least enable you to put this legal process behind you. But of course, you and your family will have to live with the enduring grief of Kimleang’s tragic death for the remainder of your lives and the Court extends its sincere sympathy to you.

[5] Mrs Youn, you said at the end of your victim impact statement that your life will be filled with regret and guilt for not having been able to protect your son. Having presided in the trial for a number of weeks I did not see anything that I would have thought required you to feel in the slightest bit guilty. The Court wishes you all the very best as you move into the future.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(d), 171 and 177. Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 36(1)(c) and (2). Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or a
$20,000 fine; and a mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.

Background

[6] Mr Teo, I will begin by briefly setting out the factual basis upon which I will sentence you today. I am required to accept as proven all the facts that are essential to your guilt.3 I may also reach my own view, based on the evidence, of those facts relevant to the sentencing so long as they are consistent with the jury’s verdict.4 Where I…

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 Teo

Details

AGLC: R v Teo [2023] NZHC 700
Case: [2023] NZHC 700
Decision Date: 27 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mesi Teo was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for manslaughter and for failing to stop to ascertain whether Kimleang Youn was injured. The court was required to determine the appropriate starting point for Teo's sentence and consider any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The court found that Teo's actions caused Youn to fear violence, leading to Youn's fatal injuries. The court also considered Teo's extensive criminal history, which included violent and drug-related offences. However, the court found that Teo's offending was not premeditated and that he had shown some remorse.

The court determined that an appropriate starting point for Teo's sentence was four years and ten months' imprisonment. The court then considered Teo's personal circumstances, including his extensive criminal history and his drug addiction, which contributed to the offending. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as Teo's difficult upbringing and his lack of stability in his early years. The court decided to give Teo a ten per cent discount on his sentence, resulting in a final sentence of four years and nine months' imprisonment. The court also disqualified Teo from driving for four years.

The court sentenced Teo to four years and nine months' imprisonment for manslaughter and disqualified him from driving for four years for failing to stop to ascertain injury. The court also remitted Teo's fines and outstanding community work. The court encouraged Teo to continue doing well in prison and to address his drug addiction.

Orders