Taia v The King - [2023] NZCA 330

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA65/2023
[2023] NZCA 330

BETWEEN	HAZE TAIA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	13 June 2023
Court:	Courtney, Peters and Mander JJ
Counsel:	R E Webby for Appellant D J McWilliam for Respondent
Judgment:	28 July 2023 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Appeal against sentence dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mander J)

Haze Taia was convicted by a jury of injuring with intent to injure,[1] robbery,[2] threatening to kill,[3] assault with intent to rob,[4] and two charges of kidnapping.[5] He was sentenced by Judge Ingram in the Tauranga District Court to an effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment.[6] Mr Taia appeals that sentence on various grounds which individually or in combination are said to have resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence.

Factual background

[1]Sections 189(2) and 66 — maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

[2]Section 234 — maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

[3]Section 306(1)(a) — maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

[4]Section 236(1)(b) — maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[5]Crimes Act 1961, s 209(b) — maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[6]R v Taia [2022] NZDC 25267.

On the night of 25 September 2020, the complainant, Kaniera Jones, became involved in an altercation with a Jacob Paul, an associate of Mr Taia and the former partner of a woman with whom Mr Jones had been socialising. Mr Paul found Mr Jones and the woman in bed together. This resulted in Mr Paul going outside and damaging Mr Jones’s car. When Mr Paul drove away from the address, he was pursued by Mr Jones and the woman. A subsequent collision between their motor vehicles resulted in damage to both vehicles.
A short time later, after Mr Jones had parked and secured his car, the woman received a phone call from Mr Taia. As a result of that conversation, Mr Taia picked up Mr Jones and the woman in his vehicle. Mr Taia was wearing his local Kawerau Mongrel Mob patch. After dropping the woman off, Mr Taia drove Mr Jones to another location where a group of five to seven men had gathered. Some were also wearing Mongrel Mob patches and/or balaclavas over their heads.
These men were immediately hostile towards Mr Jones. He was challenged, mainly by Mr Taia, about whether he knew who he had “f-ing messed with” and did he know “who we are?” because they were the mob. Mr Jones was attacked by these men. He was kicked and punched repeatedly whilst on the ground and struck with a wrench and hammer. While being assaulted, Mr Jones was asked threatening questions about his family and where they lived. A gun was put to his head and then into his mouth, with comments made such as “[w]e should just shoot him”. Mr Jones believed he was going to die. He remembers saying, “[d]on’t shoot” and the group laughing and mocking him. During pauses in the…

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 Taia v The King

Details

AGLC: Taia v The King [2023] NZCA 330
Case: [2023] NZCA 330
Decision Date: 28 July 2023 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Haze Taia appealed against his sentence imposed by Judge Ingram in the Tauranga District Court for injuring with intent, robbery, threatening to kill, assault with intent to rob, and kidnapping. The appeal was dismissed by Courtney, Peters, and Mander JJ. The court considered the appeal on five grounds: the factual findings, the starting point of the sentence, parity with co-offenders, the failure to provide a discount for methamphetamine addiction, and insufficient credit for the cultural report. The court found that the Judge’s assessment of Taia’s involvement was reasonably available and supported by the evidence, the six-year starting point was appropriate, the sentence was not required to be in parity with the co-offenders, the court was prohibited from taking into account Taia’s methamphetamine addiction as a matter of mitigation, and the discount for the cultural report was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the final sentence imposed on Haze Taia was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the sentencing exercise in its entirety and found that the final sentence imposed was within the range available to the sentencing Court in the exercise of its discretion. The appeal was dismissed, and the final orders were made accordingly.

Orders