Taputoro v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 2568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-409-000057 [2017] NZHC 2568

BETWEEN
DESIREE RUIA KRYSTAL TAPUTORO

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN Respondent

Hearing: 11 October 2017

Appearances:

M M Cole for the Appellant
M G McClenaghan for the Respondent

Judgment:

20 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Ms Desiree Taputoro was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, wilful trespass and assault with a weapon.1 She appeals against that sentence.

The offending

[2] Ms Taputoro has been, on and off, in a relationship with the victim of her offending. In October 2016, they had two children together and Ms Taputoro was pregnant with their third child. At that time, she had custody of the children and had been trespassed from the victim’s property.

[3] At 4:50 am on 1 October 2016, Ms Taputoro broke into the victim’s home

through the front door. She was armed with a pinch bar and approached the victim,

1 R v Taputoro [2017] NZDC 9028.

TAPUTORO v R [2017] NZHC 2568 [20 October 2017]

abusing him and saying he would be dead. She struck him with the bar in his shoulder area. The victim managed to disarm her, push her out of the house and lock the door.

[4] Ms Taputoro then re-entered the house through a kitchen window. She was restrained by the victim. The victim was not further injured but, during the ensuing struggle, there was some damage to the gib lining of a wall. She then started punching her own (pregnant) abdomen, whereupon she was again restrained by the victim.

[5] On 3 May 2017, Ms Taputoro was sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, wilful trespass and assault with a weapon. She appeals against that sentence.

District Court decision

[6] In fixing the starting point, the Judge noted that there was little planning or premeditation, saying the offending was more of a spontaneous reaction in an emotionally charged relationship that had gone sour. The weapon, the Judge said, was capable of doing very serious harm and, by her own words, it was clear that was her intention. He noted that no property was stolen, there were no attempts at disguising her identity and both entries were in breach of a trespass order. While the physical injuries were not serious, the Judge considered the emotional harm “considerable”.

[7] The Judge adopted a starting point of three years and nine months for the totality of the offending. No uplift was applied for her previous convictions, which are only two in number and both driving related. A 10 month reduction – approximately 22 per cent – was allowed for guilty pleas, some of which came late. The Judge then applied a further six month reduction for “the difficulties experienced by you with your separation from the victim”, her responsibilities regarding the children and “the greater difficulty…

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 Taputoro v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taputoro v The Queen [2017] NZHC 2568
Case: [2017] NZHC 2568
Decision Date: 20 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Desiree Ruia Krystal Taputoro appeals against a two-year-and-five-month sentence imposed on her by the District Court for aggravated burglary, wilful trespass, and assault with a weapon. The offending involved Ms Taputoro breaking into her former partner's house in the early hours of the morning while armed with a pinch bar. She attacked the man and caused minor injuries before being disarmed and ejected from the house. Ms Taputoro re-entered the property through a kitchen window and was again restrained by the victim. During the struggle, Ms Taputoro punched her own abdomen. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the appellant's history of domestic violence warranted a reduced sentence. The High Court found no basis for reducing the sentence. It found that while Ms Taputoro had made significant progress since her imprisonment, this did not warrant a reduced sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders