Talitua v The King - [2025] NZHC 2136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000309

[2025] NZHC 2136

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

JORDAN TALITUA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 22 July 2025

Appearances:

V Tava for Appellant

P Puertollano for Respondent

Judgment:

1 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1August 2025 at 4:00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
VI Tava, Barrister, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

TALITUA v R [2025] NZHC 2136 [1 August 2025]

This appeal and the result

[1] Mr Jordan Talitua pleaded guilty to one charge of common assault.1 He was sentenced by Judge Moala in the Manukau District Court to five months’ imprisonment.2 He now appeals that sentence.

[2]Mr Talitua argues that:

(a)the starting point was excessive;

(b)an uplift imposed for offending while on home detention (in respect of the same victim), had an element of double counting given there was also a separate uplift for prior, relevant offending; and

(c)the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

[3] I have reached the conclusion that the sentence was within the permissible range available to the sentencing Judge. It was not manifestly excessive. Neither was it inappropriate, nor was there any discernible error. My reasons follow.

The charge and the facts

[4] The victim of Mr Talitua’s offending was his then partner. They had been in a relationship together for several years. They have a young child. At the time of the offending, they resided separately.

[5] Mr Talitua was serving a sentence of home detention, with a condition not to associate with the victim.

[6] On 4 August, the victim visited Mr Talitua at his home in South Auckland for to’ana’i. This is defined in the summary of facts as a “Sunday feast”.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 196. Maximum sentence one year’s imprisonment.
2 R v Talitua [2025] NZDC 13978.

[7] At about 6.00 pm, Mr Talitua looked through the victim’s phone, accused her of cheating, and told her to leave. The victim snatched her phone from Mr Talitua and went to leave.

[8] Mr Talitua grabbed hold of the collar of the victim’s jumper and shirt and demanded the phone back. The victim told Mr Talitua to let her go but he refused, until he had the phone.

[9] Mr Talitua then “dragged” the victim, by pulling on her jumper and shirt, causing her jumper and shirt to rip, exposing her breast.

[10]Mr Talitua’s family then entered the room and defused the situation.

[11] When spoken to by the police, Mr Talitua accepted there was a verbal argument only. This, of course, must now be accepted as contrary to his plea.

Personal circumstances

[12]Mr Talitua is aged 30.

[13] He has 42 previous convictions. These include the following five sets of violent offending listed chronologically starting with the most recent.

(a)First, in July 2024, Mr Talitua was sentenced to six months’ home detention for assault with intent to injure and wilful…

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 Talitua v The King

Details

AGLC: Talitua v The King [2025] NZHC 2136
Case: [2025] NZHC 2136
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Jordan Talitua appealed the sentence imposed by Judge Moala in the Manukau District Court, which found him guilty of common assault and sentenced him to five months' imprisonment. Talitua argued that the starting point for sentencing was excessive, that the uplifts for prior and home detention offending were improper due to potential double counting, and that the final sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature of the assault, the history of violence, and the victim's impact statement in its assessment.

The court began by examining the starting point of four months' imprisonment, which Talitua's counsel argued should have been lower given the nature of the assault. However, the court found that the assault had significant elements of control, manipulation, and breach of trust, which justified the starting point. The court compared the case to other instances of common assault, finding that Talitua's assault was more serious due to the context and the significant force used.

Regarding the uplifts, the court found no double counting. The uplift for previous offending was based on Talitua's history of violence, while the uplift for offending while on home detention was due to the seriousness of breaching home detention conditions. The court supported the Judge's approach, noting that meaningful uplifts were necessary to send a clear message about the seriousness of Talitua's conduct.

Finally, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. While there may be a range of acceptable sentences, the Judge's approach was consistent with sentencing principles and adequately addressed the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the victim. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the five-month imprisonment sentence.

Orders