Legal Research
Cases
Taiapa v R

Taiapa v R

Case [2019] NZCA 524 31 October 2019

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA651/2018
[2019] NZCA 524

BETWEEN	ANDRE ROBERT TAIAPA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	10 April 2019
Court:	Clifford, Katz and Thomas JJ
Counsel:	E A Hall and E T Blincoe for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	31 October 2019 at 12 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
CThe driver licence disqualification period of four years from the date of release is quashed. A disqualification period to be calculated in accordance with [46] of this judgment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

The appellant, Andre Taiapa, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Don Turei. That charge was laid after Mr Taiapa had pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Turei, arising out of the same circumstances.
Lang J sentenced Mr Taiapa to six years and four months’ imprisonment, imposed a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 50 per cent and disqualified Mr Taiapa “from holding or obtaining a motor driver’s licence for a period of four years from the date of [his] release from prison”.[1]
[1]R v Taiapa [2018] NZHC 1815 at [47].
Mr Taiapa now appeals against that last element of his sentence: he says the period of disqualification was manifestly excessive when considered in totality with the rest of his sentence.
Mr Taiapa’s appeal was filed approximately two months out of time. As the delay has been adequately explained and no prejudice appears to arise, we grant the necessary extension.

Factual context

Saturday 26 November 2016 was an eventful day for the inhabitants of the small settlements of Raukokore and nearby Waihau Bay on the northern side of East Cape, just short of Cape Runaway on State Highway 35. Three events of some significance were underway:
(a)A large number of people were attending the tangi of a young woman who had been killed some days before.
(b)Some 250 people were attending the unveiling of the gravestone of a long-time resident and previous captain of the local Mongrel Mob chapter.
(c)Some 50 or more people were attending a local church for the wedding of a young couple with connections to the Tribesmen motorcycle gang.
The local Mongrel Mob gang pad is a short distance down the road from the Raukokore church, where the wedding took place. The reception was held approximately five kilometres further up the road, at the Waihau Bay Fishing Club.
Before the wedding began, a number of Mongrel Mob members and associates went to the church to intimidate the guests of the bridal party. At that point, there were no Tribesmen members in attendance.
By midday, affected by alcohol and drugs, members of the Mongrel Mob were impeding traffic on State Highway 35 as it went past their gang pad. At about 1 pm a group of approximately 12 patched Tribesmen gang members road past the pad on…

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 Taiapa v R

Details

AGLC: Taiapa v R [2019] NZCA 524
Case: [2019] NZCA 524
Decision Date: 31 October 2019 at 12 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andre Robert Taiapa was convicted of manslaughter after he deliberately rammed his car into the motorcycle of Don Turei, causing his death. The High Court imposed a sentence of six years and four months imprisonment, a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent, and disqualified Taiapa from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four years from his release from prison. Taiapa appealed against the disqualification period, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal granted Taiapa an extension of time for filing his appeal and allowed the appeal against the disqualification period. The Court found that while a period of disqualification may have been called for, the four-year period was excessive given the length of Taiapa's sentence of imprisonment. The Court substituted a one-year disqualification period, to commence on Taiapa's release on parole. The Court noted that a lengthy period of disqualification from driving is likely to impact adversely on a person's ability to obtain and keep employment, and that excessively long periods of disqualification can be counterproductive.

Orders