Tai v Police - [2016] NZHC 874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-470-11 [2016] NZHC 874

BETWEEN
LEXTON JOE TAI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:
3 May 2016

(Heard at ROTORUA)

Appearances:

R Stevens for Appellant
N T C Batts for Respondent

Judgment:

3 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 May 2016 at 4.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

TAI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 874 [3 May 2016]

[1] Mr Tai pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of injuring with intent to injure.1 On 22 March 2016, Judge Bouchier sentenced him to two years four months imprisonment.2

[2] Mr Tai appeals against conviction on the ground that the Judge erred in several respects when imposing sentence, and this has resulted in a sentence that is manifestly excessive.

Background

[3] The charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the morning of

10 January 2016. The agreed summary of facts records that a social gathering had begun at a residential address in Tauranga the previous afternoon to celebrate the birthday of Mr Tai’s cousin. The unveiling of Mr Tai’s grandmother had also taken place that day.

[4] The party began early in the afternoon of 9 January and continued throughout the night. At about 3 am the complainant arrived at the party in an intoxicated state. He did not know any of the other persons at the party other than his uncle, who had brought him to the address.

[5] The complainant quickly fell out of favour with other persons at the party because of the manner in which he conducted himself. Although members of his family attempted to persuade him to moderate his behaviour, he continued to act in an obnoxious manner to others at the party. Matters came to ahead at about 7 am, when the complainant deliberately tipped over a table as he stood up to go the bathroom. This resulted in a number of bottles and glasses that were on the table being broken. The complainant then went outside and watched as his aunt began to clean up the mess he had made. As she was doing this, the complainant said “Yeah
clean my shit up”. This caused Mr Tai to become agitated at the complainant’s

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2).
2 New Zealand Police v Tai [2016] NZDC 5358.

conduct. Mr Tai’s cousin intervened, and told the complainant he needed to go and get some sleep.

[6] At this point Mr Tai walked over to where the complainant and his cousin were talking. The complainant then removed his penis from his pants and waved it at the six or so persons who remained in the room. As he did so he said “You can all suck my dick”. The complainant then pointed his penis in the direction of his aunt and said “What, are you having a…

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 Tai v Police

Details

AGLC: Tai v Police [2016] NZHC 874
Case: [2016] NZHC 874
Decision Date: 3 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. LeXton Joe Tai, the appellant, appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the District Court for injuring with intent to injure. The respondent was the New Zealand Police. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the starting point for the sentence was too high, whether the Judge erred in failing to take into account the conduct of the victim in fixing the starting point, whether the Judge erred in failing to apply a discount to reflect Mr. Tai's remorse, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the starting point for the sentence was not too high, the Judge did not err in failing to take into account the conduct of the victim in fixing the starting point, the Judge did not err in failing to apply a discount to reflect Mr. Tai's remorse, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders