Taniora v Police - [2016] NZHC 2471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-270 [2016] NZHC 2471

BETWEEN
JOSHUAH TANIORA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 17 October 2016

Appearances:

A Ives for the Appellant
A McConachy for the Respondent

Judgment:

17 October 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Counsel: A Ives, Auckland

TANIORA v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2471 [17 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Taniora was convicted of threatens to kill,1 male assaults female2 and wilful damage3 following a three day Judge-alone trial. He was sentenced to two years three months’ imprisonment. Mr Taniora appeals this sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

Offending

[2] The charges relate to events on 28 July 2015. Mr Taniora rang the victim, whom he was in a relationship with, and asked her to collect him from a property in Glenfield.

[3] When she arrived, Mr Taniora got into the passenger seat of the victim’s car, unzipped his jacket and produced a machete. He then struck the victim in the face three times; head butted her on the left side of her body; grabbed her hair; and threw her around. That caused swelling to the left side of her face and a scratch on her chest.

[4] At the time Mr Taniora produced the machete he said to the victim, “I fucking told you, you fucking mongrel bitch. I’m going to fucking chop your head off and chop you up, you mongrel bitch.” He told her that he had sharpened the blade for her.

[5] Mr Taniora smashed the machete blade around the car, causing damage to the inside of the car; smashing the radio panel and knobs, wiper stem, steering wheel, top of the glove box, screen for the reversing camera, rear vision mirror and the windscreen.

[6] He instructed the victim to drive to various locations in Glenfield and

Beachaven. Mr Taniora continued to yell and threatened to chop off the victim’s

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 306. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(B). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a). The maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment
or a $2,000 fine.

head and chop her up during the drive. The victim pleaded for her life throughout the ordeal.

[7] At one of the addresses Mr Taniora repeated his threats to a man at the property, telling him: “If you ever see this fucking bitch down here again you call me so I can chop her up”. He also telephoned his cousin, telling him that he was going to chop off her head.

[8] At another address he went inside, taking the victim’s keys and cellphone. She remained in the car. When he returned he instructed her to drive to the Glenfield Rugby Club. When they arrived at the Rugby Club the victim believed that he was going to kill her as it was isolated and dark. Mr Taniora told her that he hated…

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 Taniora v Police

Details

AGLC: Taniora v Police [2016] NZHC 2471
Case: [2016] NZHC 2471
Decision Date: 17 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Joshuah Taniora appealed against his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment for charges of threatening to kill, male assaults female, and wilful damage. The sentencing judge had taken threatening to kill as the lead charge, and the sentence was based on the aggravating features of the offending, including the use of a machete and the prolonged duration of the threats. Mr Taniora argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, primarily due to the starting point and the additional uplifts for aggravating features and other charges.

The court considered whether the starting point of 30 months was appropriate and concluded that it was within range given the seriousness of the offending. The court also examined the additional uplifts for aggravating features and other charges. While it found an error in the uplift for aggravating features, as they were already considered in the starting point, it did not find the overall sentence to be manifestly excessive due to the generous discounts for rehabilitative efforts and totality. Ultimately, the court determined that any errors in the sentencing process did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders