R v Vea

Case [2019] NZHC 1587 9 July 2019

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-2019-092-000507

[2019] NZHC 1587

THE QUEEN

v

UETA VEA

Hearing: 9 July 2019

Appearances:

M K Regan and J C Toebes for the Crown

M J Dyhrberg QC and H B Hellyer for the Defendant

Judgment:

9 July 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v VEA [2019] NZHC 1587 [9 July 2019]

Introduction

[1] Ueta Vea, at the age of 45, you appear before me to be sentenced for the murder of Laulimu Liuasi. You pleaded guilty on 1 June 2019.

[2]As you will know, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.1

[3] Before fixing your sentence, I shall start first with the facts. These will be well- known to you. But because sentencing is quintessentially a public function to be undertaken in open Court such as this, I need to set the facts out in some detail.

[4] After that I shall discuss how the law works and then whether life imprisonment should be imposed. If so, I shall consider whether I should also impose a minimum term of imprisonment or MPI.

The facts

[5] Mr Liuasi was 62 years old when you killed him. He lived in a small house in the grounds of St John the Evangelist Church in Ōtara. Mr Liuasi was a handyman. He did odd jobs and maintenance for the church. He would also ring the bells to announce the Angelus every day.

[6] You and Mr Liuasi knew each other well. Your families attended the church together. There was also a time when you did maintenance work with him at the church.

[7] The events leading up to Mr Liuasi’s death began around 4 November 2018. You discovered text messages Mr Liuasi had sent your wife. He was married too. The texts were sexually suggestive and you began to suspect Mr Liuasi and your wife were having an affair. You confronted them on a number of occasions. But they denied there was anything untoward.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172.

[8] In December 2018 the ongoing tensions led to an intervention between you, Mr Liuasi and your respective spouses. It was facilitated by the local priest. Despite that you continued to harbour suspicions.

[9] Mr Liuasi and your wife continued to exchange texts. Matters came to a head on 12 January 2019. You and your wife were at a church function at Maraetai. You had been drinking. You became involved in a heated exchange with her. You aired your suspicions and, it seems, became upset. Other members of the congregation intervened.

[10] You were taken back to your home in Ōtara. Your wife went to an address in Ōtahuhu.

[11] The next morning, 13 January 2019, your wife contacted you. She asked you to move out of the family home in Ōtara. This was the precursor to the end of your marriage.

[12] Early that afternoon you and your family went to your…

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 Vea

Details

AGLC: R v Vea [2019] NZHC 1587
Case: [2019] NZHC 1587
Decision Date: 9 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the court sentenced Ueta Vea for the murder of Laulimu Liuasi. Vea, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years. The court found that two of the aggravating factors listed in Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 were present, including unlawful entry into a dwelling place and high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness. The court rejected the argument that Vea had planned the murder over an extended period and found that the level of planning was moderate at best. The court considered the cultural report prepared pursuant to Section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and accepted that participation in the Samoan custom known as ifoga reflected remorse. However, the court found that Vea's remorse could only operate to a limited extent and that his guilty plea did not mark out his case from other serious murders. The court found that imposing a 17-year MPI was not manifestly unjust and sentenced Vea to life imprisonment with a 17-year MPI.

Orders