Taiapa v R - [2011] NZCA 48

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA237/2010
[2011] NZCA 48

BETWEEN RUAUMOKO TAIAPA
Applicant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 16 February 2011

Court: Stevens, Potter and Miller JJ

Counsel: R Barnsdale for Applicant
B D Tantrum and M R Walker for Respondent

Judgment: 7 March 2011 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for extension of time to appeal is granted.

BThe application for an adjournment to argue a fresh evidence point is dismissed.

C The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Given by Stevens J)

Introduction

Mr Taiapa appeals against conviction and sentence following a series of violent episodes in Auckland in early 2008. On the second day of his trial before a judge and jury in the District Court, he pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of assault with intent to rob, five counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one count of assaulting a prison officer. Despite the guilty pleas, he seeks to challenge all bar one of these convictions on the ground that he did not understand what he was pleading guilty to. He also appeals his sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years as being manifestly excessive and disparate to those of his co-offenders.

Factual background – violent episodes in Auckland

The appellant had been released from prison and was subject to release conditions at the time of the offending. He was not permitted to travel to Auckland (where the offending occurred) without the permission of his probation officer, which he did not seek.
On the night of 10 January 2008, the appellant had been drinking with friends at an address in Mt Roskill. He approached a woman at the address, pulling a baseball bat from his trousers, and struck her on the head causing a 5 cm laceration. He then fled the scene. The victim required hospital treatment for her injury and was bedridden for five days with a severe headache. This first episode gave rise to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
The second episode occurred five days later. The appellant and three associates had been drinking and decided to carry out street robberies to get money to buy more alcohol. At 1am, the group pulled over their car in front of a cyclist who was travelling along a street in Takapuna. The associate, Mr Jono Wilson, got out, at which point the cyclist tried to avoid him, but the associate chased and managed to punch the cyclist once in the head before the cyclist abandoned his bike to escape the attack. The associate then rejoined the others in the vehicle. None of the charges faced by the appellant related to this incident.
The third episode took place soon afterward. The group pulled into a carpark at Milford Beach near another car. An associate approached the car and asked the male occupant for a beer,…

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 [2011] NZCA 48
Case: [2011] NZCA 48
Decision Date: 7 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ruaumoko Taiapa appeals against his conviction and sentence following a series of violent episodes in Auckland in early 2008. On the second day of his trial before a judge and jury in the District Court, he pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of assault with intent to rob, five counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one count of assaulting a prison officer. Despite the guilty pleas, he seeks to challenge all but one of these convictions on the ground that he did not understand what he was pleading guilty to. He also appeals his sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years as being manifestly excessive and disparate to those of his co-offenders. The Court was required to decide whether this was an appropriate case to grant an extension of time to appeal, whether the hearing of the appeal should be adjourned to allow the appellant to endeavour to secure further evidence from the co-accused, whether the appellant could bring himself within the category of exceptional circumstances justifying an appeal against conviction following entry of the pleas of guilty, and the fate of the appeal against sentence.

The Court granted the appellant an extension of time to appeal so that his key ground, namely, the challenge to the circumstances in which his guilty pleas were entered, can be properly considered on appeal. The Court was not satisfied that the appellant had made out a case for an adjournment. The Court held that the appellant had failed by a considerable margin to bring himself within the first category of Le Page. The Court held that the appellant had not shown that the final sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction as well as the appeal against sentence.

Orders