IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2020-292-1741
[2020] NZHC 3139
THE QUEEN
v
EMANUEL UNASA
Hearing:
27 November 2020
Appearances:
A J F Perkins QC for the Crown C J A Leys for the Defendant
Judgment:
27 November 2020
SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J
R v UNASA [2020] NZHC 3139 [27 November 2020]
[1] Emanuel Unasa, you appear for sentence this morning after pleading guilty to the manslaughter of Phillip Goffe.
[2] You are here today because of what happened earlier this year, on 13 February 2020.
[3] In the early morning of that day you were drinking with three friends in Laurie Gibbons Park in Weymouth. Your group was making quite a bit of noise.
[4] As it happened Mr Goffe, his wife and their two sons lived close by the park. The noise that you and your friends were making upset one of Mr Goffe’s sons who was trying to sleep. Mr Goffe’s son went out to the front of the house and yelled at you and your associates over the fence.
[5] Instead of quieting down the four of you reacted aggressively. Together you all went up to the front gate of Mr Goffe’s property and tried to encourage Mr Goffe’s son to come out and fight.
[6] Mr Goffe and the rest of his family went out to attempt to defuse the situation. They knew that the son who had been woken up had mental health issues which could cause him to be confrontational and aggressive. They told you and your friends that he was unwell and did not mean what he was saying, and Mrs Goffe took her son back into the house. Mr Goffe and his other son told you and your friends to leave.
[7] You did not do so. Instead, your group shook the gate, threw punches in the air, and gestured for a fight. At some point you and one of your friends jumped over the fence and walked towards Mr Goffe and his family. This led to Mr Goffe’s son came back out of the house to confront you and meant that the rest of the Goffe family had to put themselves between you and your friends, and their son and brother
[8] At that point, your other two friends, who showed a little bit more common sense, jumped the fence and tried to remove you and your associate from the property. They succeeded in persuading you both to leave, and the four of you jumped back over the front gate and onto the footpath.
[9] As you left, Mrs Goffe took her son back into the house. Mr Goffe followed your group and confronted you all about coming onto his property without permission.
[10] You responded by punching him in the head. Mr Goffe fell backwards onto his concrete driveway. He struck his head and lost consciousness briefly.
[11] As the emergency services were called you and…
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 Unasa
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Unasa [2020] NZHC 3139
Case
[2020] NZHC 3139
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Emanuel Unasa was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand after pleading guilty to the manslaughter of Phillip Goffe. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Unasa, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and Unasa's personal factors. The court determined a starting point of four years' imprisonment, considering factors such as the amount of force used, the lack of provocation, and Unasa's role as the prime aggressor. The court also considered personal factors such as Unasa's youth, efforts to rehabilitate, remorse, and guilty plea. After applying discounts for these factors, the court arrived at a final sentence of ten and a half months' home detention. The court found that home detention would meet the sentencing purposes and principles, and was likely to be more beneficial for Unasa's rehabilitation than a term of imprisonment.