R v Vela - [2019] NZHC 714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2016-009-012760

[2019] NZHC 714

THE QUEEN

v

MELAGI VELA

Hearing: 5 April 2019

Appearances:

M G McClenaghan for the Crown Defendant self-represented

S J Hembrow (stand-by counsel)

Judgment:

5 April 2019

REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF COOKE J

[1] On 17 October 2018 Melagi Vela was convicted in the District Court of one charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause such harm and one charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. On 27 February 2019 the Judge declined jurisdiction to sentence and referred Mr Vela to this Court for sentence because the Court had reason to believe Mr Vela should be considered for a sentence of preventive detention.1

1 See Sentencing Act 2002, s 90(2).

R v VELA [2019] NZHC 714 [5 April 2019]

Facts

Causing grievous bodily harm with intent

[2] Prior to the offending, Mr Vela had been in a relationship for a short period with the victim. The victim told the District Court that at the time of trial she still had strong feelings of affection towards Mr Vela.

[3] On the evening of 17 December 2016 at around 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm, the victim arrived at her address intoxicated. She was not able to get into her room and had to ask her elderly neighbour to let her in. The neighbour gave evidence that, while intoxicated, the victim showed no signs of physical damage to her face.

[4] The victim found Mr Vela in her room, and an argument ensued between Mr Vela and the victim. Thereafter the victim said she only remembers waking up and observing her injuries.

[5] On 20 December 2016 the victim presented at Christchurch Hospital with a significantly fractured jaw bone with severe displacement, as well as significant dental trauma and extensive soft tissue swelling. She required surgery the following day, involving the insertion of multiple metal plates and pins. There was no dispute about the fact of these injuries and that they were caused by significant violent force. Mr Vela only disputed his responsibility for the injuries.

[6] The District Court Judge found that the injuries were caused by Mr Vela with the intent to cause the victim serious harm on the evening of 17 December 2016.

Perverting the course of justice

[7] On 5 April 2017 at 9:10 am while Mr Vela was remanded in custody he made a phone call from prison to the victim. During this call the victim informed Mr Vela that there was evidence from the “neighbours” implicating him in relation to the charge of causing grievous bodily harm with the intent to cause that harm. In a further call from prison on 13 April 2017 Mr Vela said “…if you see that fuckin’ old man, can you tell him to shut the fuck up…”. And later, “[c]an you tell him to just fuck up bec-, just shut the fuck up…”

[8]…

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 Vela

Details

AGLC: R v Vela [2019] NZHC 714
Case: [2019] NZHC 714
Decision Date: 5 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vela, the defendant, Melagi Vela, was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause such harm and wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. The defendant was sentenced by Justice Cooke on 5 April 2019. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Vela should be sentenced to preventive detention, given the nature and severity of his crimes and the risk he posed to society. The court considered the statutory provisions for preventive detention under the Sentencing Act 2002, including the necessity for a high risk of reoffending and the absence of effective efforts to mitigate this risk.

The court assessed the aggravating factors of the crimes, which included extreme violence, targeting the victim's head, the breach of trust, the victim's vulnerability, the sanctity of the home being violated, and the extent of harm caused. The court also examined the defendant's criminal history and the recommendations from two health assessors. Dr Tegwyn Williams and Ms Elizabeth Waugh both concluded that Mr Vela exhibited a high propensity to violence, particularly in the context of intimate relationships, exacerbated by alcohol dependency and unresolved issues from childhood sexual abuse.

After considering the submissions from both the Crown and the defendant's stand-by counsel, the court determined that a finite sentence of ten years imprisonment was appropriate. The court concluded that a sentence of preventive detention was not warranted as the risk of reoffending could be managed through a lengthy determinate sentence, potential extended supervision, and the defendant's engagement in rehabilitation programs. The court emphasized the importance of culturally appropriate treatment and the defendant's capacity for change, ultimately deciding that a finite sentence provided adequate protection for society.

Orders