Legal Research
Cases
R v Timoti

R v Timoti

Case [2024] NZHC 70 2 February 2024

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Minimum Period of Imprisonment (MPI)

Remorse

Sentencing

Criminal Law

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-2022-092-006579

[2024] NZHC 70

THE KING

v

JOSHUA TIMOTI

Appearances:
N E Walker for Crown

N J Manning and S Brickell for Prisoner

Sentenced:

2 February 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREW J

R v TIMOTI [2024] NZHC 70 [2 February 2024]

Introduction

[1] Tēnā koe Mr Timoti, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand at the conclusion of my remarks.

[2] Mr Timoti, you appear this morning for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.1 Your actions resulted in the death of Mr Douglas. That was, of course, a tragic loss of life and nothing I say today in sentencing can bring him back. You are also to be sentenced on a charge of injuring with intent to injure.2 That offence was committed against a very senior police officer.

[3]The charge of manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.3

[4] The critical issues I must determine today are firstly, the starting point for your sentence, whether there should be discount for personal circumstances and whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. That is what we lawyers and Judges call the MPI – namely, the minimum period of imprisonment you must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

[5] I am going to begin my comments by addressing the facts of your offending and as set out in the Police summary of facts. I must of course sentence you on that basis.

Relevant facts

Manslaughter

[6] On 18 August 2022, you displayed signs of paranoia and erratic behaviour. You decided to quit your job and to return home to be with your wife and daughter. In the early evening you were drinking beer with your brother-in-law, Mr Tamala.

[7] Following an altercation on Park Avenue, Ōtāhuhu, you returned to your home enraged and agitated. You grabbed two knives from the kitchen, which your wife convinced you to return. You then started to calm down. However, once she left your anger arose again and you had to be calmed down a second time by Mr Tamala.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a) and 171.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 177.

[8] Minutes later, you noticed two men at a nearby unit. When Mr Tamala was in the bathroom, you retrieved the two knives (one 34 cm and one 23 cm) and went outside to confront Mr Douglas and Mr Lalogafau with a knife in each hand.

[9] You approached Mr Douglas yelling “where’s the kids, where’s my kids?”. You then punched him in the face, causing him to fall backwards and onto the ground. Then you stood over Mr Douglas and repeatedly stabbed him with both knives in a “jackhammer” motion. Mr Douglas lay on the ground trying unsuccessfully to get away.

[10] Mr Lalogafau kicked you off Mr Douglas, causing you to fall over.…

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 [2024] NZHC 70
Case: [2024] NZHC 70
Decision Date: 2 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Timoti appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, to be sentenced for manslaughter and injuring with intent to injure. The court had to determine the starting point for the sentence, whether a discount should be applied for personal circumstances, and whether a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) should be imposed. The court found that the manslaughter charge carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and the injuring with intent to injure charge carried a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

The court considered the facts of the case, including the victim impact statements from the deceased’s family and the injured police officer. The court also considered the defendant’s personal circumstances, including his mental health and previous good character. The court found that the defendant’s offending fell into the most serious category of the guideline judgment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and set a starting point of nine-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter charge and up to three years’ imprisonment for the injuring with intent to injure charge. The court then considered whether to adjust the starting point based on the defendant’s personal circumstances, and decided to apply a discount of 45 per cent, resulting in an end sentence of five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter charge and three months and nine days’ imprisonment for the injuring with intent to injure charge, to be served concurrently. The court also imposed a MPI of 40 per cent for the manslaughter charge, namely two years two months and 12 days’ imprisonment.

Orders