Taingahue v The Queen - [2016] NZHC 2788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2016-416-22 [2016] NZHC 2788

BETWEEN
DESTINY TAINGAHUE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 11 October 2016 via AVL

Counsel:

T Epati for the Appellant
F E Cleary for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Destiny Taingahue was convicted following a judge alone trial in the Gisborne District Court as a party to injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. She also pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis for supply while on bail awaiting trial on the injuring with intent charge. She was sentenced to three years
and one month imprisonment.1 She appeals this sentence. She contends the Judge

erred by not allowing any discount for her personal circumstances arising from the birth of her baby.

The offending

[2] Destiny Taingahue, Charlene Taingahue, Wairangi Hubbard and a fourth, unidentified, woman assaulted the complainant over money she owed to Ms Hubbard. The complainant and her mother were sitting in a parked car. The defendants pulled up and parked their car bonnet-to-bonnet with this car. Ms
Hubbard approached the car on the mother’s side and asked her to pay the money the

1 R v Taingahue [2016] NZDC 15260.

TAINGAHUE v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 2788 [22 November 2016]

complainant owed. Destiny and Charlene Taingahue and the fourth offender approached the complainant’s side of the car. One of those three, it was not clear which of them, hit the complainant on the head with a spanner through the passenger door. Charlene Taingahue dragged the complainant from the car and a three-on-one beating ensued. The complainant lay defenceless on the ground. The assault lasted for about one minute. The complainant suffered some contusions to her face and arms but no permanent injury. She self-discharged from the hospital on the same day as the assault.

[3] While on bail for this offending Destiny Taingahue was apprehended while attempting to sell cannabis. She was found to have 15 cannabis “tinnies”, with a total weight of 9.3 grams, three cell phones, $252 cash, and a notebook containing names and dollar amounts owed next to them.

The sentencing

[4] Charlene Taingahue and Ms Hubbard were sentenced on 29 January 2016.2

The Judge adopted a starting point of three years imprisonment for each of them. There were no personal aggravating or mitigating factors for either of them. The end sentence was therefore three years imprisonment. These sentences were upheld on appeal.3 In dismissing Ms Hubbard’s appeal the High Court Judge considered the District Court Judge did not err in declining to discount her sentence because of her two young children, aged one and three years.4

[5] Destiny Taingahue was not sentenced until 9 August 2016. This was because she was in the late stages of pregnancy when her co-offenders were sentenced. She gave birth to her baby, [name], on 29 February 2016. Further adjournments were granted to provide an opportunity to find a suitable home detention address and to await the outcome of her…

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 Taingahue v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taingahue v The Queen [2016] NZHC 2788
Case: [2016] NZHC 2788
Decision Date: 22 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Destiny Taingahue appeals against her sentence of three years and one month imprisonment imposed by the District Court following her conviction for being a party to injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and possessing cannabis for supply while on bail. The primary legal issue is whether the District Court Judge erred by not discounting the sentence for Taingahue's personal circumstances, particularly her status as a young mother and the positive changes she had made in her life since the birth of her child. The court considered whether the Judge appropriately balanced these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence.

The High Court found that the Judge did not sufficiently consider the mitigating factors presented, such as Taingahue's commendable efforts to improve her life and care for her child. The court noted that a defendant's family situation, including the well-being of the defendant's child, should always be taken into account by the sentencing judge. While the court recognised the severity of the offence, it held that Taingahue's efforts to become a better mother and her positive changes warranted a discount to her sentence. The court concluded that a 15% reduction was appropriate, resulting in a sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment.

The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was replaced with a reduced sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment, reflecting the significant positive changes Taingahue had made in her life.

Orders