R v Vi - [2023] NZHC 1118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-019-004506

[2023] NZHC 1118

THE KING

v

PETER VI

Hearing: 11 May 2023

Counsel:

KRL Guthrie for Crown

KW Burroughs and SF Gilbert for Defendant

Judgment:

11 May 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. KW Burroughs, Hamilton. SF Gilbert, Hamilton.

R v VI [2023] NZHC 1118 [11 May 2023]

Introduction

[1] Peter Vi, you are for sentence for murdering Georgina Ngataki. I begin by acknowledging the presence of Ms Ngataki’s whānau. I record the obvious. No sentence can diminish your loss, recognise the value of Ms Ngataki’s life, or reflect the profound harm you have suffered because of the offending.

[2]I am required to explain the facts. I now do so.

Facts

[3] Mr Vi, you and Ms Ngataki lived in separate units in a block of flats here in Hamilton. You both received support for alcohol addiction and other difficulties. Ms Ngataki had suffered a brain aneurysm some years ago.

[4] The two of you moved into the flats in 2018. You formed a friendship and later, a relationship. Ms Ngataki helped you, Mr Vi. For example, she acted as your agent in relation to your benefit. The money was paid into her bank account as you did not have one. Ms Ngataki would withdraw your money and give it to you.

[5] Your relationship was punctuated by arguments and violence. More accurately, you were violent to Ms Ngataki, Mr Vi.

[6] On 27 April 2021, you and she were drinking. An argument developed. You struck Ms Ngataki to the face with considerable force. The blow was sufficiently powerful to render her unconscious. She awoke with bruising, bleeding, and sore ribs. She was taken to hospital. She suffered bruising behind her ear, scalp, neck and chest, a broken nose, and concussion. Despite the severity of your assault, the relationship continued.

[7] On 22 September 2021, another argument developed. You and Ms Ngataki had earlier returned to her flat. You were carrying a box of beer. The argument lasted for approximately 10 minutes. It was heard by neighbours downstairs. Indeed, it was also heard from another block of flats. The closer neighbours heard yelling, screaming, and banging.

[8] Those in the flats further away could hear your voice. An occupant of those flats went to investigate. She saw you hunched over Ms Ngataki, striking her with both arms. Your blows caused audible thuds. Ms Ngataki was saying “don’t”. You struck Ms Ngataki in this way at least four times.

[9]Police were called. It took a little time for them to find the right unit.

[10] You meanwhile, Mr Vi, left Ms Ngataki’s flat at 2.36 that afternoon. Before doing so, you removed your shorts and put on a pair of tracksuit pants. You then went back to your own unit. There, you changed all of your clothing, including your footwear. You then returned to Ms Ngataki’s unit, from which…

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 Vi

Details

AGLC: R v Vi [2023] NZHC 1118
Case: [2023] NZHC 1118
Decision Date: 11 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vi, the defendant, Peter Vi, was convicted of murdering Georgina Ngataki. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Vi's crime, focusing on the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment before Vi becomes eligible for parole. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and Vi's background and personal circumstances.

The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment for Vi's murder conviction, ensuring it met the purposes of holding Vi accountable, denouncing the offending, deterring Vi and others, and protecting the community. The court acknowledged several aggravating factors, such as the severity of the violence, the breach of trust given the relationship between the victim and the offender, and Vi's callous behaviour after the offence. The court also considered mitigating factors, including Vi's late guilty plea and his personal circumstances, such as his intellectual deficits and history of alcohol abuse.

The court found that while these mitigating factors provided some context for Vi's offending, they did not warrant a significant reduction in the minimum period of imprisonment. The court ultimately decided on a minimum period of 11 years and nine months before Vi would be eligible for parole, acknowledging the seriousness of the crime and the need to balance this with Vi's personal circumstances.

The final order of the court was that Peter Vi be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 11 years and nine months before he becomes eligible for parole.

Orders