R v Tepana - [2013] NZHC 1592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-016749 [2013] NZHC 1592

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICK KOTI TEPANA

Hearing: 27 June 2013

Appearances: A L Patterson for the Crown
C Muston for the Prisoner

Sentence: 27 June 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Counsel:
C Muston, Barrister, Whangarei
A L Patterson, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

R v TEPANA [2013] NZHC 1592 [27 June 2013]

Introduction

[1] Patrick Tepana, you appear for sentence today having been convicted following a jury trial on one charge of manslaughter. You are liable to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] At the time of your offending you were a sheet metal worker living in Dargaville. Your victim was Christopher Edwards who was 61 years of age at the time of his death. He was your stepfather, having been your mother’s partner for 30 years. You knew him well.

[3] The events giving rise to the charge of manslaughter occurred on 10 January

2012. On this day you were at the home of your mother and stepfather. At the time you were bailed to their address with a curfew because you were facing charges of assault against your own partner to which you later pleaded guilty. That evening, a number of family members were also at the address. You were all seated around a table in the kitchen/dining room area. Mr Edwards was present and socialising with you all.

[4] You were all consuming alcohol. At some stage during the course of the evening you became angry at Mr Edwards. As Mr Edwards remained seated you stood up and punched him several times to the head and face with your fists. He had no opportunity to defend himself against your blows and he did not retaliate. Other family members intervened to prevent you from inflicting further blows. Mr Edwards sustained bruising to his face, including a black eye and a small cut above his lip. It seems everyone continued drinking before eventually going to bed.

[5] You say that it was an accident because all you wanted to do was to stop Mr Edwards from choking you around the neck following his accusation that you had stolen his mag wheels. I reject that explanation, having heard all the evidence. You did not say that to Detective Crawford or Constable Curnow instead admitting that you punched Mr Edwards or gave him three smacks. You also told the presentence report writer that you have no memory of the assault.

[6] I prefer the evidence of the other witnesses who say you were intensely but misguidedly jealous of your partner. In that regard I accept her evidence when she said that some days earlier you had threatened to kill her and Mr Edwards if anything did happen between them. That to my mind is the explanation for the assault. It was no accident Mr Tepana.

[7] In any event Mr Edwards got up reasonably early next morning but obviously feeling unwell later went back to bed.…

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 Tepana

Details

AGLC: R v Tepana [2013] NZHC 1592
Case: [2013] NZHC 1592
Decision Date: 27 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patrick Koti Tepana was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial and appeared for sentencing before Woolford J. The defendant, a 44-year-old sheet metal worker, assaulted his stepfather, Christopher Edwards, resulting in the victim's death. The court considered the aggravating factors, including the defendant's violent history, his actions during the assault, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court also took into account the victim impact statements from the victim's family, which highlighted the profound effect the defendant's actions had on them.

The legal issues before the court were determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence and adjusting it based on any aggravating or mitigating factors. The Crown argued for a starting point of five to six years imprisonment, while the defence suggested a starting point of three and a half to four years. The court ultimately determined a starting point of eight years imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's history of violent offending.

The court considered the defendant's history of violence and alcohol abuse, as well as the vulnerability of the victim during the assault. The court found no mitigating factors, as the defendant had shown no real remorse for his actions. The court also imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of five years to denounce the defendant's conduct and highlight the harm caused by alcohol-fuelled violence.

The final outcome was a sentence of eight years and six months imprisonment for manslaughter, with the defendant not being eligible for parole until he had served five years of the sentence.

Orders