Legal Research
Cases
Takimoana v The Queen

Takimoana v The Queen

Case [2021] NZHC 1028 10 May 2021

Driving While Disqualified

Reckless Driving

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI 2021-488-12

[2021] NZHC 1028

BETWEEN
PHILLIP LANCE TAKIMOANA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 3 May 2021

Appearances:

D Blaikie for Appellant

R Annadale for Respondent

Judgment:

10 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 May 2021 at 2.30pm.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
D Blaikie, Barrister, Kaikohe Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

TAKIMOANA v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1028 [10 May 2021]

[1] The appellant, Phillip Takimoana, pleaded guilty in the District Court to three driving charges: dangerous driving causing death,1 failing to stop and ascertain injury and render assistance after an accident where a person has been killed2 and driving while disqualified.3 On 15 February 2021, Judge Shortland sentenced Mr Takimoana to two years, two months’ imprisonment.4 He now appeals against this sentence on the basis the sentencing Judge erred in imposing the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.5

Facts

[2] The victim of the offending, Ms Ruffiner, and Mr Takimoana had been in a relationship for six years. The events which led to Ms Ruffiner’s death happened on 6 November 2019. That evening she collected Mr Takimoana from the AFFCO works at Moerewa, where he had finished a 10 hour shift, and drove to the Ōhaeawai Hotel, where they lived. At the time Mr Takimoana was disqualified from driving. On 31 October 2019, just under a week earlier, he was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol.

[3] Shortly after their arrival at the hotel the couple began arguing. Ms Ruffiner wanted to socialise with Mr Takimoana in the hotel bar; he was tired after a long shift at work and wanted a quiet night. She had already been drinking alcohol; he had not. The argument reached a point where Mr Takimoana felt he had to leave. He took the car keys, left the hotel and went to the car, which was parked in the rear carpark. Once in the car he started the engine. Ms Ruffiner, who was on her way out of the hotel, heard the car start and responded by going to the car and climbing on its bonnet to prevent Mr Takimoana from driving off. She moved up on to the roof of the car. Despite her actions Mr Takimoana drove off while she was on the roof of the car. He first turned out of the carpark onto State Highway 1 and then immediately turned right into State Highway 12. Ms Ruffiner remained on top of the vehicle.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36AA(1)(b). Maximum penalty: ten years’ imprisonment or fine of
$20,000.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(c). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment or fine of
$20,000.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a). Maximum penalty (first or second offence): three months’ imprisonment or fine of $4,500.
4      R v Takimoana [2021] NZDC 2786.
5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).

[4] What happened next was…

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 Takimoana v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Takimoana v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1028
Case: [2021] NZHC 1028
Decision Date: 10 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Lance Takimoana appealed against his sentence for driving charges that resulted in the death of his partner, Ms Ruffiner. The sentencing judge adopted a starting point of four years’ imprisonment, which the appellant submitted was too high. The respondent argued that the starting point was within the available range. The court found that the starting point should have been three years and seven months’ imprisonment, considering the appellant’s culpability and the specific facts of the case. The court also found that the total discount of 50.5 per cent resulted in an end sentence of one year and nine months’ imprisonment, which confirmed that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and a sentence of nine months’ home detention was imposed instead. The court considered home detention appropriate in this case to balance denunciation and deterrence with compassion and a focus on the appellant’s rehabilitation.

Orders