R v Turipa-Wano - [2017] NZHC 1803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2016-082-241 [2017] NZHC 1803

THE QUEEN

v

PUKEHORE PENEHIO TURIPA-WANO

Counsel:
C R Walker for Crown

E R Fairbrother QC for Defendant

Date:

28 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF CLARK J

[1] Mr Turipa-Wano you may remain seated until I come to impose sentence.

[2] I am to sentence you today for manslaughter, wounding with reckless disregard and unlawful possession of a firearm. You were found guilty of manslaughter following a jury trial on a charge of murder. The jury found you guilty of wounding with reckless disregard and you pleaded guilty at the close of the Crown case to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

[3] You have not appeared in the courts before. You may not be familiar with the sentencing process. It is a public process and one that requires me to go through certain steps.

(a) first, I will set out the background to your offending;

(b) then I will discuss the impact of your offending on Tawari Mita’s

family;

R v TURIPA-WANO [2017] NZHC 1803 [28 July 2017]

(c) I will then assess what is an appropriate starting point for your sentence; and

(d)whether there should be any adjustments up or down from that starting point; and

(e) finally I will impose sentence in respect of all offences.

Background

[4] On 1 July 2016 you and Mr Mita had been working together. You finished around mid-afternoon. In the early evening you gathered with others to socialise at Waimako Pa where you living.

[5] You were drinking alcohol. You also consumed cannabis and methamphetamine. As the evening wore on and you had more alcohol your behaviour changed. You became intimidating and aggressive. For example, you said to the group, but not to anyone in particular, “I’ll fucking kill a person if he fucks with me”. And you said “I may be slow, that’s why I use weapons”. You became increasingly aggressive. You smashed bottles and you flipped the kitchen table.

[6] You picked up a large bread knife and threatened Whitiaua Spooner with it. Mahaki Beattie attempted to disarm you. In the skuffle you pulled your arm back and the knife ran across Mr Beattie’s forearm cutting him. The wound left a scar about 10 cm long. You didn’t stop there. You charged at Mr Spooner and punched him. Eventually you were persuaded to leave and you went to your home very close by.

[7] You locked yourself in the house and went into your parents’ bedroom to get a gun. It was locked in a cupboard. You smashed a hole in the cupboard and you got the gun out. You rummaged around looking for the bolt. Your father wanted you to let him into the house but you had jammed the doors locked and he could not enter. The police were called but they were some 40 minutes away.

[8] Meanwhile you picked up a knife and a large wrench and you stormed back…

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 Turipa-Wano

Details

AGLC: R v Turipa-Wano [2017] NZHC 1803
Case: [2017] NZHC 1803
Decision Date: 28 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Turipa-Wano involved the defendant being sentenced for manslaughter, wounding with reckless disregard, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for each offence, considering the circumstances of the case, the impact on the victim's family, and the defendant's personal factors. The legal issues at hand included the assessment of the seriousness of the offending, the starting point for sentencing, and any adjustments up or down from that starting point based on personal factors and mitigating circumstances.

The court, in its reasoning, assessed the seriousness of the defendant's actions, noting the unprovoked nature of the attack, the prolonged violent episode, and the use of a lethal weapon. The court compared the defendant's case to other similar cases to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, ultimately deciding on a starting point of nine years for manslaughter. The court then considered personal factors such as the defendant's good character when sober, his genuine remorse, and his early offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. These factors led the court to reduce the starting point by a total of 18 months, resulting in a final sentence of seven years for manslaughter. For the charge of wounding with reckless disregard, the court imposed a sentence of one and a half years to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence, and for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, a sentence of twelve months imprisonment was imposed, also to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was to serve seven years imprisonment for manslaughter, one and a half years for wounding with reckless disregard, and twelve months for unlawful possession of a firearm, all sentences to be served concurrently.

Orders