R v W - [2025] NZHC 176

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-219-000278

[2025] NZHC 176

THE KING

v

W

Hearing: 14 February 2025

Appearances:

A M McClintock and K Nihill for Crown

B J Hunt and H de Groot (via VMR) for Defendant

Sentence:

14 February 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland B J Hunt/H de Groot, Auckland

R v W [2025] NZHC 176 [14 February 2025]

[1] Mr W, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of the crime of manslaughter. You stood trial on the charge of murder, but the jury acquitted you on that charge.

[2]The maximum sentence for the crime of manslaughter is life imprisonment.1

The facts

[3] The facts on which I propose to sentence you are based on the evidence adduced at the trial. In the large part, this comprised CCTV camera film footage taken of the area in which the incident giving rise to the charge occurred.

[4] You and two associates went to the Albany bus station on the afternoon of 18 September 2023. You were on your way to buy some food. Whilst you were at the bus station, CCTV cameras recorded the victim, Mr Epapara Poutapu, approaching one of your associates, Mr H, and engaging in a discussion with him. Mr Poutapu had earlier been pacing around the bus station and appearing to be in an agitated state. Mr H’s interactions with Mr Poutapu led him to conclude that Mr Poutapu was in a mentally unstable state. He then went and talked to you about his discussion with Mr Poutapu. Neither you nor your associates had ever encountered Mr Poutapu before.

[5] The CCTV footage then shows Mr Poutapu walking away from Mr H before walking out onto the main bus platform. You also walked out onto the platform at this time, having discussed with Mr H his interactions with Mr Poutapu. You were some distance away from Mr Poutapu when you went onto the platform. Contrary to the Crown’s submission at trial, I do not accept that you made any attempt to advance towards or challenge Mr Poutapu at this stage. Rather, your evidence and your movements as captured on CCTV confirm that you were asking Mr Poutapu about his interactions with Mr H, in whose direction you gestured. At one stage your hand movements also confirm your evidence that you were attempting to calm him down.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 177.

[6] The footage shows that Mr Poutapu then advanced towards you before stopping and taking off his jacket. He placed this, together with a bag that he was carrying, on a nearby seat. He then advanced aggressively towards you with his fists raised. It is clear from this footage that Mr Poutapu was…

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 W

Details

AGLC: R v W [2025] NZHC 176
Case: [2025] NZHC 176
Decision Date: 14 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Mr W, was sentenced for the crime of manslaughter following a trial where he was acquitted of the more serious charge of murder. The court presided over by Lang J, heard the case on February 14, 2025, with the Crown represented by A M McClintock and K Nihill, and the defendant by B J Hunt and H de Groot. The legal issues the court needed to decide included setting a starting point for the sentence, considering various aggravating and mitigating factors, and determining the appropriate sentence for the crime of manslaughter. The court also had to decide whether to grant a permanent suppression of the defendant's name and identifying particulars.

The court determined that the starting point for the sentence should be six years imprisonment, taking into account the defendant's actions in self-defence against an aggressive confrontation, and acknowledging the mitigating factors of his youth, remorse, and willingness to engage in restorative justice. Various mitigating factors, such as the defendant's offer to plead guilty, his young age, and his background of trauma and abuse, led the court to provide a global discount of 22 months, reducing the sentence to three years imprisonment. The court also considered the defendant's potential vulnerability to the effects of publication of his name and particulars, and granted a permanent order for suppression under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

In conclusion, Mr W was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the crime of manslaughter, with a permanent order in place for the suppression of his name and identifying particulars.

Orders