Legal Research
Cases
R v Uhatafe

R v Uhatafe

Case [2023] NZHC 248 21 February 2023

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-2020-092-9886

[2023] NZHC 248

THE KING

v

PENITIKETO UHATAFE

Hearing: 21 February 2023

Counsel:

C Howard and J Cassidy for Crown L Smith for Defendant

Sentence:

21 February 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

R v UHATAFE [2023] NZHC 248 [21 February 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Uhatafe, you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty to manslaughter.1 The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The offending

[2] It is first necessary for me to set out the facts of your offending because sentencing is a judicial function which must be undertaken in public. You have accepted these facts by way of your guilty plea and there is no dispute about them.

[3] You knew the deceased Ms Fiva well, as you were in a relationship with her for about five years. You both were born and resided in Tonga. You each had children but none together. The deceased has one teenaged daughter. The two of you came to New Zealand together on a holiday and were unable to return due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

[4] On 26 September 2020, you and Ms Fiva were attending a birthday party. The party continued until the early hours of the morning of 27 September. Ms Fiva took her phone out to film one of the other guests singing. You became enraged at this and you began an argument with Ms Fiva. You warned her if she did it again you would hit her.

[5] Shortly afterwards Ms Fiva resumed filming the other party guest. You stood up and struck her with a strong blow across the left side of her head. Ms Fiva was knocked unconscious, slumped into her chair and then collapsed onto the wooden deck. Guests from the party chased you off the property.

[6] An ambulance arrived. CPR was attempted. Ms Fiva showed no signs of life and she was pronounced dead. She died from your blow. You must now live with the reality that you were responsible for taking her life and depriving her daughter of a mother.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 177. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.

Victim impact reports

[7] I have not been provided with any victim impact reports. The family have elected not to take part in the sentencing process.

What is the appropriate starting point?

[8] The first stage in the sentencing process is to set a starting point. This is done by reference to the aggravating and mitigating factors of your offending and to other cases similar to yours. After that I will consider what adjustments need to be made to the starting point to account for your personal circumstances.

[9] There is no guideline judgment for manslaughter cases, due to the wide- ranging circumstances in which manslaughter can occur.2 The proper approach in manslaughter cases involving serious violence is to determine the starting point derived by application of…

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 Uhatafe

Details

AGLC: R v Uhatafe [2023] NZHC 248
Case: [2023] NZHC 248
Decision Date: 21 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Uhatafe before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, involved the sentencing of Mr Uhatafe for manslaughter. Mr Uhatafe pleaded guilty to manslaughter, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Mr Uhatafe, considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors of his offending. The court was required to establish a starting point for sentencing by referencing cases of similar offending and then adjusting this starting point based on Mr Uhatafe’s personal circumstances.

The court determined that the appropriate starting point for Mr Uhatafe's case was four years’ imprisonment. This decision was based on a comparison with other manslaughter cases, particularly those involving serious violence and the "one-punch" category, which typically attract a starting point of five to six years. The court noted several aggravating factors in Mr Uhatafe's case, including the targeted attack on Ms Fiva's head, the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, and the premeditation. However, the court also considered mitigating factors such as Mr Uhatafe's guilty plea, his efforts towards rehabilitation, and the time already spent in custody or on bail. After applying these mitigating factors, the court determined an appropriate sentence of five months’ home detention.

The final order of the court was that Mr Uhatafe be sentenced to a term of five months’ home detention, taking into account the seven months he had already spent in custody and the 22 months on restrictive bail conditions. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of both the seriousness of the offence and Mr Uhatafe’s personal circumstances.

Orders