R v Waa

Case [2018] NZHC 1028 10 May 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2017-019-1653

[2018] NZHC 1028

THE QUEEN

v

CAROL TAKUA WAA

Hearing: 10 May 2018

Appearances:

R G Douch for Crown

K Burroughs for Defendant

Judgment:

10 May 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Kerry Burroughs, Hamilton

R v WAA [2018] NZHC 1028 [10 May 2018]

Introduction

[1] Carol Takua Waa, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.1

The circumstances of the offence

[2] The deceased victim was your husband, Gerald Wiremu Waa. Your relationship began around 1983. You had three children together over that 35 year period.

[3] In March 2017, you and your husband were living in a one bedroom unit situated on the top floor of a block of flats in Te Aroha Street, Hamilton.

[4] On 11 March 2017, a Saturday, you and your husband attended a lunch for local Maori Wardens before returning home. You both then began to drink throughout the afternoon and into the evening.

[5] Between 7.00 and 8.00pm you and your husband went downstairs to the flat below you, where the resident, Ms Pihama, had two visitors. All three of them were invited to you and your husband’s flat to socialise. For a period of about two hours the group socialised and drank together amicably.

[6] Around 10.00pm Ms Pihama went downstairs to charge her cellphone. You and your husband began arguing. During the course of the argument you both went into the bedroom. Upon hearing raised voices the other two guests felt awkward and went back downstairs. For a period of about 10 minutes those downstairs heard a violent incident upstairs with raised voices and banging. They heard your voice stop yelling during the banging and were concerned for your safety but did nothing to intervene.

[7] There was clearly a struggle between you and Mr Waa. You told the Police that Mr Waa asked you to drive him and the two visitors into town and when you refused his request Mr Waa threw you across the room into a wooden chair, which

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 158, 160(2)(a), 171 and 177.

broke. You refused to drive them into town because you were concerned your husband had sexual designs upon one of the visitors. Your husband continued to assault you.

[8] Your husband left the bedroom and returned with a bread knife and threatened you with it. He said that if you did not do what he wanted he may as well kill you there and then. He held the knife to your throat. He put the knife down before recommencing his assault upon you at which point you picked up the knife and stabbed him, enabling you to get past him and out of the bedroom.

[9] You came downstairs and joined the group and had a cigarette. You then returned upstairs to your own…

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 Waa

Details

AGLC: R v Waa [2018] NZHC 1028
Case: [2018] NZHC 1028
Decision Date: 10 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carol Takua Waa pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter in relation to the death of her husband, Gerald Wiremu Waa. The Crown sought a starting point of four years and nine months imprisonment, while Waa's counsel submitted that a starting point of no more than four years imprisonment was appropriate. The court found that the appropriate starting point was three years and nine months imprisonment. The court found that there were strong mitigating factors in this case, including that the deceased was the primary aggressor, that Waa's use of the knife was impulsive and driven by the circumstances of the moment, and that Waa had a history of being a victim of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. The court found that a discount of 12 months was appropriate to take into account Waa's diminished understanding, to recognise the disproportionately severe consequences that a lengthy term imprisonment may have for her psychological and psychiatric wellbeing, and to acknowledge the positive steps she has taken towards addressing these issues to assist in her rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The court found that a further discount of two months was appropriate for Waa's expression of remorse, a discount of three months for her time on electronically monitored bail, and a discount of four months for her early guilty plea. The end result of this process was a sentence of two years imprisonment. However, the court found that given the highly specific context of Waa's offending, imprisonment was not necessary to show society’s disapprobation of her offending nor was it likely to be useful in rehabilitative terms. The court sentenced Waa to 12 months home detention on the conditions set out in the pre-sentence report and issued a three strikes warning.

Orders