Saua v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 3330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-419-67

[2021] NZHC 3330

BETWEEN
SAUA SAUA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 7 December 2021

Appearances:

M James for Appellant

J N Hamilton for Respondent

Judgment:

7 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 December 2021 at 3 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

SAUA v R [2021] NZHC 3330 [7 December 2021]

[1] Mr Saua pleaded guilty to charges of the aggravated wounding and aggravated injuring of two police officers.1 The charges were laid in their aggravated form under s 191(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 because they related to an attack by Mr Saua on two police officers in order to facilitate his flight after they had attempted to arrest him.

[2] On 23 September 2021, Judge S R Clark sentenced Mr Saua to two years nine months imprisonment.2 Mr Saua appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge erred in law when he constructed the overall starting point for both charges.

The offending

[3] Mr Saua was suspended from driving on 4 April 2021. On the following day two police officers found him driving a motor vehicle. They stopped him and told him his car would be impounded for 28 days. He became agitated and retrieved a claw hammer and golf club from his vehicle. He threw these at the officers. He then took a baseball bat from his vehicle. When asked why he had the baseball bat in his vehicle he swore at the officers.

[4] The officers then told Mr Saua he was under arrest for being in possession of an offensive weapon. He responded by striking one of the officers, Constable Owen, in the head with the baseball bat. He did so with sufficient force to render the constable unconscious. The other officer, Constable Petch, then attempted to arrest Mr Saua. This resulted in a struggle during which Mr Saua used the bat to strike the constable twice in the back of the head, causing him to suffer momentary loss of vision.

[5] Mr Saua then took the opportunity to flee from the scene, although he stopped and waited a short distance away. When the officers recovered their senses they approached him and used tasers to effect an arrest.

[6] Constable Owen required hospitalisation for three days. He was then confined to bed rest for four weeks and was off work for two months. Not surprisingly, the incident has had significant psychological repercussions for him. He has sought

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 191(1)(c) and 191(2)(c).
2 R v Saua [2021] NZDC 19071.

counselling but the incident and resulting injury have significantly affected the way in which he now carries out his duties as a police officer.

[7] Constable Petch was not able to work for more than a month. He was also unable to drive for two weeks and has been required to…

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 Saua v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Saua v The Queen [2021] NZHC 3330
Case: [2021] NZHC 3330
Decision Date: 7 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Saua appealed against his sentence for aggravated wounding and aggravated injuring of two police officers. The Crown accepted that the Judge had erred in including an uplift for the charge of aggravated injuring, which was prohibited by s 18 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Saua’s offending involved the use of a baseball bat to inflict significant injury to one officer and momentary loss of vision to the other officer. The Crown submitted that the charge of aggravated wounding justified a starting point of eight years imprisonment. The Court found that the starting point of eight years was slightly high and that a starting point of eight years was more appropriate. The Judge had applied discounts amounting to approximately 67 per cent of the starting point. The Court found that the discounts applied were not excessive and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. However, the Court considered it appropriate to intervene due to the error of law and Saua’s age. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence of two years nine months imprisonment imposed on the charge of aggravated wounding was quashed and replaced with a sentence of two years seven months imprisonment. The concurrent sentence of 18 months imprisonment on the charge of aggravated injuring was quashed, and Saua was discharged on that charge.

Orders