Legal Research
Cases
R v Waitokia

R v Waitokia

Case [2017] NZHC 178 16 February 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

THISIS A REDACTED VERSION OF THE JUDGMENT. PARTS OF PARAGRAPHS [14] AND [37] HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF PARTS OF PARAGRAPHS [14] AND [37] OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-241 [2017] NZHC 178

THE QUEEN

v

TANIELA KOTOITOGA DAVEN TIAKO WAITOKIA

Hearing: 16 February 2017

Counsel:

M Zarifeh for Crown
J Eaton QC for Defendant

Judgment:

16 February 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Taniela Waitokia, you are for sentence this morning for the murder of Harold

Richardson in his home on the night of 1 August 2015.

Factual background

[2] At the time that you committed this offence you were 16 years of age. Mr Richardson was an elderly 87 year old man who lived alone. He was a person known to you. You, like a number of other youths, would visit Mr Richardson to sell him stolen property and to carry out odd jobs for money, such as mowing his lawn or taking him to the supermarket.

[3] During the trial there was some dispute as to the circumstances relating to
your visit to Mr Richardson’s home on the evening you attacked him. There is some controversy as to whether you broke into his house or gained access as a result of

R v WAITOKIA [2017] NZHC 178 [16 February 2017]

Mr Richardson answering the door as you claimed to the police. I will return to that issue shortly.

[4] Whatever the situation in that regard, in my view it is clear that you went to Mr Richardson’s house that night with the intention of stealing from him or robbing him. It is apparent from discussions that you had with associates shortly before you set off that you were prepared to physically confront Mr Richardson and assault him in order to carry out the robbery.

[5] You attacked Mr Richardson with a bottle. You struck him at least 14 times. Defensive injuries to Mr Richardson’s hands reveal that he sought to protect himself during what was a sustained and brutal attack. It is not clear whether the jury’s verdict reflects a finding of your intention to cause Mr Richardson grievous bodily harm for the purpose of robbing him, or that in attacking Mr Richardson you took the conscious risk of him dying. Both, in my view, were available on the evidence and they are not mutually exclusive. Mr Richardson received grievous and fatal head injuries, including a stab wound to his head. Your attack went well beyond what was necessary to enable you to steal from him.

[6] Before leaving the house you took electrical equipment and alcohol. Mr Richardson was located the next day, lying on the floor of his lounge where you had attacked him.

[7] Other aspects of your conduct and behaviour that night I will refer to in the course of my sentencing remarks.

The victim

[8] Mr Richardson was at the time of his death…

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 Waitokia

Details

AGLC: R v Waitokia [2017] NZHC 178
Case: [2017] NZHC 178
Decision Date: 16 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taniela Waitokia was convicted of murdering Harold Richardson, an elderly man, in his home on 1 August 2015. The defendant, who was 16 years old at the time, attacked Mr Richardson with a bottle, striking him at least 14 times. The Court had to decide whether the mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years should apply and, if so, whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose such a term. The Crown argued that the defendant was eligible for the 17-year minimum because the murder involved unlawful entry into the dwelling and was committed in the course of a robbery. The defendant's age and personal circumstances, including exposure to violence, gang culture, criminal offending, drug use, and mental health issues, were also considered.

The Court found that the defendant's presence in Mr Richardson's home was unlawful due to his intent to rob the victim. The murder was committed in the course of a robbery, and Mr Richardson's vulnerability due to his age and infirmity was an aggravating factor. However, the Court concluded that imposing a 17-year minimum term would be manifestly unjust. The defendant's age, personal background, and potential for rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. The Court determined that an 11-year and 6-month minimum term was appropriate. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 11 years and 6 months.

Orders