Legal Research
Cases
R v Vaitohi

R v Vaitohi

Case [2023] NZHC 2761 3 October 2023

Contempt of Court Act 2019

Criminal Law

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-2021-092-4333

[2023] NZHC 2761

THE KING

v

SOSAIA VAITOHI METHUSELAH TALAKAI

Defendants

Hearing: 3 October 2023

Appearances:

CP Howard and JAE Tausi for the Crown AS Bloem for Mr Vaitohi

J-A Kincade KC and S Brickell for Mr Talakai

Sentencing:

3 October 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

To:J-A Kincade KC, Auckland A Bloem, Auckland
S Brickell, Auckland

R v VAITOHI [2023] NZHC 2761 [3 October 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Vaitohi and Mr Talakai, you appear for sentencing before me this morning following the jury at your trial unanimously finding you each guilty of the murder of Alec Moala.

[2] Before going further, I would first like to acknowledge the presence of family members and supporters here in Court today for all parties. I appreciate that it is a difficult and emotional time.

[3] I particularly want to acknowledge the presence of Mr Moala’s wife who has read her victim impact statement here in Court this morning. That takes great courage, and I am sure you will all agree that she did so with great dignity. It is clear how much Mr Moala meant to you and your family, and how much his presence is and will be missed. I extend the Court’s deepest sympathies to you. I appreciate that nothing I say or do today will take away the grief and sense of loss that you and your family are experiencing, but I hope that today’s sentencing brings some closure for you, at least in terms of this court process.

[4] Mr Vaitohi and Mr Talakai, the first thing I am going to do in sentencing this morning is to summarise the facts of your offending. You will already be familiar with the facts, having seen and heard all of the evidence given at trial. But sentencing is a public process and so it is important that the public understand the basis upon which I am sentencing you today.

[5] I make one final point by way of introduction. Under the Sentencing Act 2002, and unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so, the law says that I must sentence each of you to life imprisonment. Your lawyers quite rightly do not try to argue that it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment in this case. Life imprisonment will therefore be the sentence I impose on each of you at the end of this sentencing. What will be the focus of my sentencing remarks today is what the minimum period of imprisonment, or what I will refer to as the “MPI”, should be. The MPI is not the sentence. It is the amount of time that you each must spend in custody before you can start to ask the Parole Board to be released on parole. There is no guarantee that the Parole Board will release you at that point.…

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 Vaitohi

Details

AGLC: R v Vaitohi [2023] NZHC 2761
Case: [2023] NZHC 2761
Decision Date: 3 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Vaitohi and R v Talakai concerns the sentencing of two defendants, Mr Vaitohi and Mr Talakai, following their conviction for the murder of Alec Moala. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for each defendant, which is the amount of time they must serve before becoming eligible to apply for parole. Given the nature of the offence, the law mandates a sentence of life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust, which the defence did not argue. The court acknowledged the emotional impact on the victim's family and the community, emphasizing the gravity of the offence.

The legal issues the court addressed included the applicability of certain aggravating and mitigating factors to the sentencing, such as the use of a weapon, premeditation, and personal background factors of the defendants. The court considered whether the circumstances of the murder were particularly serious enough to warrant a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years, as stipulated in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court also weighed the submissions from both the Crown and the defence regarding the appropriate MPI for each defendant, taking into account their respective roles in the offence and their personal backgrounds.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the offence was serious, it did not meet the threshold for the particularly serious circumstances outlined in the Act. The court determined that the appropriate MPI for Mr Vaitohi, who was the actual shooter, should be 14 years, reflecting his intent to kill. For Mr Talakai, who played a supportive role but did not directly shoot the victim, the court set the MPI at 13 years and six months. The court also considered personal mitigating factors for each defendant, including their backgrounds and previous convictions, and adjusted the MPIs accordingly. Mr Vaitohi's MPI was increased by three months to reflect his history of relevant offending, while Mr Talakai's MPI remained unchanged. Additionally, the court found Mr Vaitohi in contempt for refusing to answer questions about Mr Talakai during his testimony, though it did not impose a separate sentence for this contempt due to the life sentence already given.

The final orders of the court were that both Mr Vaitohi and Mr Talakai be sentenced to life imprisonment with specified minimum periods of imprisonment before they can apply for parole. Specifically, Mr Vaitohi was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 13 years and seven months, and Mr Talakai to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 13 years and six months.

Orders