R v Tutai - [2024] NZHC 3499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-090-3914

[2024] NZHC 3499

THE KING

v

JAYKOB TUTAI

Hearing: 21 November 2024

Appearances:

C Paterson and L Dittrich for Crown

C A Robertson and S Norrie for Defendant

Sentence:

21 November 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland C Paterson, Auckland

R v TUTAI [2024] NZHC 3499 [21 November 2024]

[1] Mr Tutai, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the murder of Ms Nazia Hai, your former partner and the mother of your six-year-old son. Ms Hai was 27 years of age at the time she died, whilst you were 29 years of age at that time.

[2] There is no dispute that the sentence I must impose is one of life imprisonment. The issue I need to decide today is the length of time you should be required to serve before being eligible to apply for parole.

Factual background

[3] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that you and Ms Hai had been in a relationship since 2012. Your son was born in 2017.

[4] Your son and his family celebrated his sixth birthday on 10 September 2023. By this stage you and Ms Hai had been separated, and you and she were staying in separate bedrooms at her mother’s address. You were not present at the celebration of your son’s birthday but returned to the address later in the evening. The summary records that there was a degree of conflict between you and Ms Hai at that time, motivated it seems by your mistrust of her.

[5] You and Ms Hai slept in separate bedrooms that night as you had been doing since you separated. Your 11-year-old niece and your son were also staying at the address that night.

[6] At approximately 6.45 am on 11 September 2023, Ms Hai came into your bedroom and asked where your son’s Nintendo console was. She also asked you whether you had sold it.

[7] This led to a short verbal argument that quickly escalated into a physical assault in which you stabbed Ms Hai numerous times. These included deep wounds to her chest cavity, upper torso and neck area. You used a knife taken from a knife block in the kitchen to inflict these wounds, although it is not known when you armed yourself with this.

[8] Ms Hai’s mother ran to her daughter’s assistance when she heard her screaming. As she entered the room, she observed you removing the knife from Ms Hai’s body. Ms Hai’s mother then tried to drag her daughter away from you. At this point you telephoned the police. You told them you had stabbed your former partner and that she was dying. When the police arrived at the address a short time later, they found you inside the house still holding the knife in your hand.…

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 Tutai

Details

AGLC: R v Tutai [2024] NZHC 3499
Case: [2024] NZHC 3499
Decision Date: 21 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of the Crown v Jaykob Tutai involved the sentencing of the defendant for the murder of his former partner, Ms Nazia Hai. Tutai had pleaded guilty to the murder, which occurred on 11 September 2023 when he stabbed Ms Hai multiple times at her mother’s residence, leading to her death. The court had to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment before Tutai would be eligible for parole, considering factors such as the brutality and callousness of the crime, and various personal mitigating factors related to Tutai's background.

The legal issue central to the sentencing was whether the murder committed by Tutai involved a level of brutality and callousness that would engage Section 104(1)(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002, which mandates a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment. The Crown argued that the crime was sufficiently brutal and callous to engage this section, while Tutai's counsel contended for a minimum term of no more than 12 years. The judge considered various factors, including the number of stab wounds, their location, and the domestic setting of the crime, but ultimately concluded that the murder, while heinous, did not meet the threshold for Section 104(1)(e). The court then proceeded to assess the appropriate minimum term independently of this section.

In reaching its decision, the court compared Tutai’s case to several precedent cases. The comparison highlighted that while Tutai's crime was serious, it was less severe than cases where the court had found Section 104(1)(e) to be applicable. The judge noted that although the number of stab wounds and the domestic setting were aggravating factors, they did not reach the level of brutality required to engage Section 104(1)(e). After considering various sentencing authorities, the court determined that a minimum term of 14 years and six months was appropriate. This was then adjusted to account for personal mitigating factors, including Tutai's guilty plea and his history of substance abuse and mental health issues, leading to a final sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 13 years before eligibility for parole.

The court's final orders reflected the determination of the appropriate minimum term, ensuring that Tutai serves a significant period before any possibility of parole, while also taking into account the mitigating factors presented.

Orders