R v Turi - [2013] NZHC 2411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-032-002988 [2013] NZHC 2411

THE QUEEN

v

HARLEM RAWIRI TURI

Hearing: 13 September 2013

Counsel: A J Ewing for Crown
C W J Stevenson for Accused

Sentence: 13 September 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] Mr Turi, I now have to sentence you on your conviction for the manslaughter of Mr Michael Mulholland.

[2] First, I will review the facts relevant to the offending because that has a bearing on how seriously your offending is to be treated in terms of the length of the prison sentence you must serve. The view I take of the facts has to be consistent with the jury’s verdict, and is otherwise to reflect the view that I take of all the evidence as I observed it at the trial. On some points, Mr Stevenson has argued that I take a view of the facts more favourable to you than Ms Ewing urged for the Crown, and I have had regard to that in reviewing all the relevant evidence.

[3] For much of the day on 20 September 2012, you had been drinking with associates in the vicinity of Farmer Crescent in Lower Hutt. At about 9.50 pm that evening, you accompanied Desmond Leaf to the house occupied by Mr Michael
Mulholland. You and Mr Leaf were both wearing Mongrel Mob regalia.

R v TURI [2013] NZHC 2411 [13 September 2013]

[4] Mr Mulholland was known in the area as a drug dealer, and you went there intending to obtain methamphetamine, although for your own part you had no money.

[5] Mr Leaf knew Mr Mulholland, but you had not previously met him. You both entered his house, and either or both of you asked that he supply you with methamphetamine. When Mr Mulholland told you that he did not have any methamphetamine, you challenged him, apparently not believing him. On Mr Leaf ’s version of events, which, consistently with the jury’s verdicts, I accept, he hit Mr Mulholland first, probably only once, giving him a jab that was most likely a signal challenging Mr Mulholland to tell the truth about whether he had drugs or not, rather than being intended to inflict any serious harm.

[6] You then followed suit, inflicting a number of blows to Mr Mulholland’s head and neck. Your assault caused significant injuries including fractures to nasal bones and to the orbital socket around one of Mr Mulholland’s eyes, together with abrasions elsewhere on his face and a break to thyroid cartilage in his neck. Mr Mulholland bled quite profusely, with blood in both the kitchen and bathroom of his house.

[7] Mr Stevenson urged that the evidence did not establish that you had landed any more than, say, two punches, whereas the Crown characterise it as a more sustained beating. Mr Stevenson has referred to witnesses acknowledging the possibility that some of the injuries identified in the post-mortem were caused after your assault when Mr Mulholland collapsed on the…

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 Turi

Details

AGLC: R v Turi [2013] NZHC 2411
Case: [2013] NZHC 2411
Decision Date: 13 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Turi involved the defendant, Harlem Rawiri Turi, who was convicted of the manslaughter of Michael Mulholland. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Turi, considering the circumstances of the offence and Turi's criminal history. The key legal issues were to establish the starting point for the sentence by comparing Turi's case with other manslaughter cases, and to evaluate aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to Turi's personal circumstances. The court concluded that Turi's actions, though not intending to cause death, were serious enough to warrant a starting point of seven years and three months' imprisonment, based on comparisons with other manslaughter cases and the application of sentencing bands for grievous bodily harm. Considering Turi's extensive history of violent crimes and lack of rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of eight years and three months' imprisonment, with a minimum of four years and three months to be served before parole eligibility, alongside a concurrent sentence for theft.

Orders