R v Veatupu - [2018] NZHC 2640

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-063-4300 [2018] NZHC 2640

THE QUEEN

v

DARALEE VEATUPU

Hearing: 11 October 2018

Appearances:

A Hill for the Crown
N Utting for Ms D Veatupu

Judgment:

11 October 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
N Utting, Tauranga

R v VEATUPU [2018] NZHC 2640 [11 October 2018]

Introduction

[1] Daralee Veatupu, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to influence, by threats or bribes or other corrupt means, a member of a jury.1

Background

[2] I begin by setting out the matters that have brought you before the court today. You will be familiar with them, and have accepted them by pleading guilty, but as
sentencing is a judicial function which must be exercised in public, I am obliged to repeat them.

[3] Your offending occurred during the trial of your ex-partner, Christopher Jolley. Mr Jolley and a number of his associates were on trial for a number of charges arising out of an altercation that took place in Rotorua in 2015. The most serious charge was attempted murder, with Mr Jolley personally defending charges of participation in an organised criminal group and possession of an offensive weapon.

[4] The trial commenced in the High Court at Rotorua on 13 November 2017. You were frequently in attendance in the public gallery in the first two weeks. On Thursday
30 November, the jury began considering its verdict.

[5] The jury continued its deliberations for the next two days until they were sent home for the weekend. At about 3.30 pm on Saturday 2 December, you went to the residence of one of the jurors and knocked on the door. The juror recognised you immediately, having seen you in the public gallery throughout the trial. You were distinctive at that time being seven months pregnant and with dyed blonde hair.

[6] You told the juror you wanted to speak to her about the trial, as one of the defendants was your boyfriend. The juror describes you as softly spoken, and says you appeared upset. You told her that you had not seen your partner properly for two years and wanted to spend time with him over Christmas. The juror repeatedly told you she could not speak about the trial. You then offered to give her $5,000 “right

here, right now”. The juror told you she couldn’t take the money, returned inside, and immediately called the Police.

Personal circumstances

[7] Ms Veatupu, you are now 26 years old. You have four children, the two youngest to Mr Jolley, although I understand that relationship has now ended. You have suffered post-natal depression following the birth of your youngest child. You had a difficult upbringing and were raised by your Grandmother until you were 12, when she passed away. You mother had addiction issues and your father was gang affiliated. These issues, and poverty, followed you during 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 Veatupu

Details

AGLC: R v Veatupu [2018] NZHC 2640
Case: [2018] NZHC 2640
Decision Date: 11 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Daralee Veatupu, was sentenced for attempting to influence a juror by bribery during the trial of her ex-partner, Christopher Jolley, who was charged with attempted murder and other serious offences. Veatupu pleaded guilty to the charge of attempting to influence a juror by threats or bribes or other corrupt means. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for this offence, considering the serious nature of the crime and the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court began by identifying a starting point for sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offence and its potential impact on the trial. It was noted that Veatupu's actions had the potential to derail a trial involving serious charges, which necessitated a sentence emphasising denunciation and deterrence. The court compared Veatupu's case to similar cases where sentences were imposed for interfering with jurors, and determined that a starting point of two years and four months imprisonment was appropriate. The court then considered mitigating factors, including Veatupu's difficult upbringing and her efforts towards rehabilitation, and applied discounts for her guilty plea and personal circumstances, resulting in a nominal sentence of 19 months imprisonment.

Given the nature of the offence and Veatupu's personal circumstances, the court concluded that a sentence of home detention was the least restrictive option appropriate in the circumstances. The court considered the benefits of home detention for Veatupu's rehabilitation and the care of her children, and determined that it was suitable for her to serve her sentence at her aunt's address, who had provided support and a pro-social environment. The court imposed a sentence of nine months' home detention on the conditions recommended in the Corrections report.

Final orders: Daralee Veatupu was sentenced to a term of nine months’ home detention on the conditions recommended in the Corrections report for attempting to influence, by threats or bribes or other corrupt means, a member of a jury.

Orders