1      Crimes Act 1961, s 177(1). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Section 267(1). Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 194. Maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.

R v WAWATAI [2014] NZHC 2374 [3 October 2014]

(2) Discuss the impact of your offending on members of Ms Akuhata’s

whanau.

(3) Examine your personal circumstances.

(4) Set out the starting point to your sentence.

(5) Examine possible adjustments to the starting point. (6) Explain your sentence.

Your offending

[3] The jury found you guilty of arson which means that they were all satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you set fire to your house in circumstances where you knew or ought to have known you were likely to endanger Ms Akuhata’s life.

[4] On the other hand, the jury unanimously acquitted you of the charge of murder and elected instead to convict you of manslaughter.

[5] In the circumstances of this case the jury’s verdict in relation to the murder

charge is difficult to reconcile with its conclusions on the arson charge.

[6] In sentencing you, I shall draw upon the facts which best reflect the jury’s

verdicts, difficult though that is.

[7] You, Ms Akuhata, and members of her family had been drinking during most of the day on 10 October 2012. The drinking continued when you went into Tikitiki to Ms Akuhata’s family home.

[8] At about 5.00 pm you and Ms Akuhata returned to your home on the main road north of Tikitiki. You and Ms Akuhata had an argument. She tried to leave. Ms Akuhata packed her possessions and walked from your home down the main road towards Tikitiki. You then followed her in your truck and brought her back to

your home. Upon your return to the house, the argument appears to have continued. At some point you hit Ms Akuhata.

[9] At about 7.00 pm you went and obtained a five litre plastic container of petrol from the shed. You sprinkled its contents in the bedroom where Ms Akuhata was. You probably sprinkled petrol on her. You then set fire to the room. Ms Akuhata ran from the room, on fire, and collapsed in the lounge where she died.

[10] I am sure that after you saw Ms Akuhata on fire you immediately regretted your actions. You telephoned the emergency services. By that stage, however, it was too late to save Ms Akuhata.

[11] When you were spoken to by the police you accepted that you had sprinkled the bedroom with petrol. You…

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 Wawatai

Details

AGLC: R v Wawatai [2014] NZHC 2374
Case: [2014] NZHC 2374
Decision Date: 3 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wawatai, the defendant, Lawrence Huihui Wawatai, was convicted of manslaughter, arson, and male assaults female. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these convictions, considering the unique circumstances of each offence and the impact on the victim's family. The court needed to establish a starting point for the sentence, assess any aggravating or mitigating factors, and ultimately decide on the length and nature of the sentence.

The court began by outlining the facts of the case, focusing on the events leading to the victim's death and the defendant's level of culpability. The jury found the defendant guilty of arson and manslaughter, but acquitted him of murder, a verdict the court found difficult to reconcile. The court then discussed the impact of the defendant's actions on the victim's family, highlighting the deep hurt, anger, and bewilderment felt by the family members. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of alcohol abuse and previous convictions.

The court determined a starting point for the sentence by referencing the Taueki methodology, which involves assessing the aggravating factors present in the case. The court identified premeditation, serious injury, and extreme violence as highly relevant factors, justifying a starting point of between nine and 14 years' imprisonment. The court also considered the vulnerability of the victim, which further supported a higher starting point. After examining comparable cases, the court decided on a starting point of 13 years' imprisonment.

In assessing possible adjustments to the starting point, the court considered the defendant's previous convictions, but ultimately decided not to take them into account in determining the length of the sentence. The court also examined whether the totality of the defendant's offending warranted an increased sentence, but found that the offences were so intertwined that they should be treated as one. The court found no mitigating factors that could result in a reduction of the starting point.

The court concluded that a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment served the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, holding the defendant accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing his conduct, and deterring him and others from committing similar offences. The court sentenced the defendant to 13 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, seven years' for arson, and one year for male assaults female, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were for the defendant to serve a maximum of 13 years' imprisonment for the three convictions, with the sentences running concurrently.

Orders