R v Ufi - [2023] NZHC 2953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-012-765

[2023] NZHC 2953

THE KING

v

MOANA UFI

Hearing: 19 October 2023

Appearances:

R D Smith for the Crown

A Dawson for the Defendant

Judgment:

20 October 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J

[1] Mr Ufi, you appear before the Court for sentence today, having pleaded guilty to one charge of strangulation1 and one charge of assault with a weapon.2 The charges carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment and five years’ imprisonment.

[2] There is a process I must go through when sentencing you. Both lawyers agree that the end result for you will be a sentence of imprisonment. The question is what that term of imprisonment should be. After I have outlined what you did, I will then adopt what we call a starting point for the term of imprisonment, which I consider properly reflects your offending.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189A; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 202C; maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.

R v UFI [2023] NZHC 2953 [20 October 2023]

[3] I will then consider and assess the personal matters that relate to you to see whether any reductions from the starting point are justified and this will lead me to the end sentence.

The offending

[4] I start by outlining your offending. You and the victim were both living at the same community housing facility in Dunedin and were known to each other. In the early hours of the morning on 11 May 2023, the victim asked to use your phone charger. You refused his request, so he cut the charger cord. You became angry and followed him into his room. You smashed his wooden clothing dresser and threw pieces of timber at him as he was sitting on his bed. The pieces hit him on his thigh and torso area.

[5] You both began to fight with each other. You were restrained from behind by [a support person]. And, if I can just say [to the support person], if you are here, I have made a suppression order in relation to you. While you were restrained, you kicked the victim in the chest before breaking free and cornering him between the couch and the bed. The victim was face down on the ground. You stood over him and used both hands to cover his nose. You then held him in a chokehold with your arm around his neck and the other hand pushing his head down. The victim became unconscious.

[6] You were pulled away by [the support person] but again broke free, this time hitting the victim in the back of the head with a piece of timber from the drawers as he lay unresponsive on the ground. You said you would stab him.

[7] In your interview with the Police, you stated you wanted to kill the victim because he broke your phone charger. You said you were surprised you…

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 Ufi

Details

AGLC: R v Ufi [2023] NZHC 2953
Case: [2023] NZHC 2953
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moana Ufi appeared before Harland J in the High Court of New Zealand at Dunedin, having pleaded guilty to charges of strangulation and assault with a weapon. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, with both parties agreeing that the sentence would be imprisonment. The legal issues at hand were to ascertain the starting point for the term of imprisonment and then to adjust this starting point based on personal mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court commenced by outlining the details of the offending, which involved a physical altercation between Ufi and the victim, escalating to Ufi choking the victim until he lost consciousness and then striking him with a piece of wood. The court identified several aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability, the severity of the violence, and the defendant's threats post-assault. The Crown and the defence presented various cases to guide the court in determining the starting point, ultimately leading Harland J to set a starting point of four years and six months imprisonment, with an additional six months uplift for the use of a weapon, bringing the total to five years and six months. The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal history, particularly his history of violent and threatening behaviour, and added a five per cent uplift to the starting point for personal deterrence and community protection. On the mitigating side, the court acknowledged Ufi's early guilty plea, his cooperation with police, and his mental health issues, particularly his schizophrenia and substance abuse, which contributed to his offending. The court deducted 15 per cent from the starting point for these mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with an 18-month sentence for the assault with a weapon charge. Additionally, a firearms prohibition order was imposed by consent.

In summary, the court sentenced Moana Ufi to a term of two years and eight months for strangulation and 18 months for assault with a weapon, to be served concurrently, along with a firearms prohibition order.

Orders