R v Timoti - [2025] NZHC 869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-087-000681 [2025] NZHC 869

THE KING

v

ITI TIMOTI

Hearing:10 April 2025 (Heard at Hamilton)

Appearances: A J Pollett for the Crown
C A Gentleman and C A Harold for the Defendant

Judgment: 10 April 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Counsel/Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga C A Gentleman, Tauranga C A Harold, Tauranga

R v TIMOTI [2025] NZHC 869 [10 April 2025]

[1] Iti Timoti, you appear today for sentencing having been found guilty by a jury on 20 August 20241 of the manslaughter of George Maaka.2 The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.3

[2] As I have already acknowledged, I welcome the presence today of Mr Maaka’s family and thank you very much for being here. I have read the victim impact statements and I pay tribute to the courage of the writers and acknowledge the pain and loss they and other whānau have experienced.

[3] I also acknowledge the presence by VMR of Mr Timoti’s whānau if they have been able to join us. Mr Timoti, the rest of my remarks are addressed to you.

[4]For your information, this is the process I will follow:

(a)First, I will outline the circumstances of your offending.

(b)Secondly, I will consider your relevant personal circumstances as they have been put before the Court.

(c)Thirdly, I will explain the approach to setting the sentence and discuss the requirements of the Sentencing Act 2002 as they apply in this case and in accordance with decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court.

(d)Finally, I will determine and impose the sentence I consider appropriate.

The offending

[5] Mr Timoti, you have been found guilty and convicted in relation to events that occurred at Tuhoe Avenue, Whakatāne in the late evening of 17 May 2023. Those events resulted in injuries to Mr Maaka which, in turn, led to Mr Maaka’s admission

1      R v Timoti HC Rotorua CRI-2023-087-000681, 20 August 2024 (Bench Note No 7 of van Bohemen J).
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a) and 171.
3      Crimes Act, s 177(1).

into the Whakatāne Hospital in the early hours of 18 May 2023 and to his death a few days later.

[6] As both Crown and defence counsel acknowledged in their closing addresses to the jury, and as we have discussed today, the evidence of what happened at Tuhoe Avenue was not clear in every respect. We know Mr Maaka had been drinking before he came to the house, that he sat down in the kitchen area with some of the other persons resident at or visiting the house, and that more drink and cannabis were consumed. But the evidence as to what exactly happened between you and Mr Maaka was a little unclear. Witnesses gave differing accounts of what went on: there were differences between the various witnesses and differences between the evidence that individual witnesses gave at trial and what they…

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 Timoti

Details

AGLC: R v Timoti [2025] NZHC 869
Case: [2025] NZHC 869
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Timoti involves the sentencing of Iti Timoti, who was found guilty of manslaughter in relation to the death of George Maaka. The central legal issues in the case revolve around determining an appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering the aggravating factors of the offence, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court had to assess the severity of the violence, the effect of the head injuries, and the relevance of Timoti’s background and previous convictions in setting a sentence. The court also had to consider mitigating factors such as Timoti's remorse and potential for rehabilitation.

The court, after weighing the evidence and submissions from both the Crown and defence counsel, determined that a starting point of six years' imprisonment was appropriate. The court found that while the violence was substantial, it was not extreme, and there was no evidence that Timoti intended to cause serious harm. The court also concluded that there were no significant mitigating factors to warrant a discount to the starting point. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of George Maaka. The court emphasized the need to hold Timoti accountable for his actions and to denounce the violence, while also considering his age and the potential for rehabilitation upon release.

Orders