R v Vitali - [2014] NZHC 49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-044-3169 [2014] NZHC 49

THE QUEEN

v

PETER VITALI

Hearing: 4 February 2014

Counsel: J LS Shaw for the Crown
J D Munro for the Prisoner

Sentencing: 4 February 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BROWN J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Counsel: J D Munro, Auckland

R v VITALI [2014] NZHC 49 [4 February 2014]

Introduction

[1] Peter Vitali, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2] You are liable to a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment.

[3] Mr Vitali, it seems you treat the victim as your daughter, although you are not related by blood, and also as your de facto partner. She lived with you at a commercial workshop. You lived in a caravan on the premises whereas she slept in a storage container.

[4] Your behaviour that led to this charge is detestable. In the early hours of

9 May 2012, you argued with the victim over cigarettes. She fled and hid in fear of you – understandably so given your long history of violence and mistreatment of women. You hunted her down and when you found her, you punched her in the head and kicked her in the ribs.

[5] You then put your belt around her neck, and dragged her across the gravel to your caravan. You strangled her with the belt, twisting it so hard you broke and dislocated the victim’s jaw. Her teeth cut the inside of her mouth and caused significant bleeding. You then dragged her over to a chilly bin full of rain water and told her to wash off the blood. When she did so, you held her head under water. She managed to struggle to her side to enable her to breath and you then took the victim into the caravan.

[6] In the morning, she tried to use a porta loo to clean herself up. She then hid under a truck in the yard. A worker saw her there in the morning and convinced you to take her to hospital and she required surgery and metal plates in her jaw.

[7] You initially told police that the victim must have attempted suicide and sustained the injuries by hanging herself with a belt.

Personal circumstances

[8] I turn now to your personal circumstances. You are 59 years of age and of European descent. The victim was your partner but you are no longer in a relationship. You say you no longer have any gang associations, but you appear to be involved in ongoing gang disputes.

[9] You have 42 previous convictions, including three noteworthy convictions for violence: threatening to kill and do grievous bodily harm in 2003, male assaults female in 2003 and male assaults female in 1977. You also have two convictions for disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence.

Pre-sentence report

[10] I have received a pre-sentence report prepared by the Probation Service. You say that on the night of…

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 Vitali

Details

AGLC: R v Vitali [2014] NZHC 49
Case: [2014] NZHC 49
Decision Date: 4 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Vitali was heard and determined on 4 February 2014. Peter Vitali was convicted of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and faced a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. The court heard that Vitali, who had a history of violence against women, had attacked his partner over a trivial dispute, causing severe injuries including a broken and dislocated jaw. The victim required surgery and metal plates to repair her jaw and suffered ongoing physical and psychological harm. The court had to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing, particularly holding Vitali accountable for his violent actions, denouncing his conduct, and deterring him and others from similar offending.

The court considered submissions from both the Crown and the defence. The Crown argued for a starting point of five and a half to six and a half years imprisonment, taking into account the extreme violence, use of a weapon, attacks to the head and neck, vulnerability of the victim, and the harm caused. The defence argued for a starting point of five to five and a half years, considering the use of the belt as a weapon, attacks to the head, and the extent of the injuries. Both parties agreed that Vitali's previous convictions and guilty plea warranted some discount on the sentence.

After considering the Taueki guidelines and comparable cases, the court set a starting point of six years and six months imprisonment, reflecting the extreme and prolonged nature of the violence. The court uplifted the sentence by six months to account for Vitali's history of violent offending and reduced the sentence by one month for his participation in restorative justice and by 20% for his guilty plea. The final sentence was five years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of three years and six months. The court also issued a warning under the three strikes law, advising Vitali of the consequences of any future serious violence convictions.

In summary, the court sentenced Vitali to five years and six months imprisonment for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The court's decision was based on the extreme and prolonged nature of the violence, the harm caused to the victim, and the need to hold Vitali accountable, denounce his conduct, and deter future offending.

Orders