Tatafu v The King - [2025] NZHC 1496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-142 [2025] NZHC 1496

BETWEEN KOLINO TATAFU
Appellant

AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2025

Appearances: R Keenan for the appellant
S Cox for the respondent

Judgment: 9 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 June 2025 at 4.00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Liberty Law Barristers, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau

TATAFU v R [2025] NZHC 1496 [9 June 2025]

[1] Ms Tatafu appeals against a decision of Judge L Radich in the District Court at Manukau dated 31 January 2025 sentencing her to two years and seven months’ imprisonment in relation to charges of causing loss by deception.1

The offending

[2] Ms Tatafu offended by setting up several fictitious schemes which caused financial loss to members of the Tongan community. In all, 29 individuals are known to have lost an estimated total of just under $63,000.

[3] The offending took place from late 2019 to late 2023, when was Ms Tatafu was between 65 and 69 years’ old.

[4] Ms Tatafu pleaded guilty to three representative charges. The charges were causing loss by deception (over $1,000),2 causing loss by deception ($500 to $1,000),3 and causing loss by deception (under $500).4

District Court decision

[5]The Judge sentenced Ms Tatafu to two years and seven months’ imprisonment.

To reach this sentence, the Judge:5

(a)took a starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment for the current offending;

(b)applied an uplift of three months’ imprisonment to reflect Ms Tatafu’s criminal history, which included offending similar to the present offending; and

(c)applied discounts totalling 35 per cent, being 25 per cent for an early guilty plea and 10 per cent for Ms Tatafu’s age and health issues.

1      R v Tatafu [2025] NZDC 1793.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(d) and 241(a). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 240(1)(d) and 241(b). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
4      Sections 240(1)(d) and 241(c). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      R v Tatafu, above n 1, at [48].

The appeal

[6] Ms Tatafu’s appeal is only in relation to the 10 per cent discount the Judge applied for her age and health. The Judge said the following about this:6

[43] A further discount is sought for Ms Tatafu’s age and infirmity. In this regard, I have some difficulties, which we have explored in oral submissions. The sole documentation on which a discount is sought is a letter from Ms Tatafu’s general practitioner that is more than a year old, dated 30 November 2023. The letter is brief. It lists seven conditions to which she was subject at that time. These are diabetes, mellitus, asthma, hypertension, IHD (ischaemic heart disease), gastroesophageal reflux, cervicalgia (being pain in the neck), and diverticulosis. I am informed by Ms Keenan that these conditions are chronic and, therefore, that the position has not changed since November 2023.

[44] I…

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 Tatafu v The King

Details

AGLC: Tatafu v The King [2025] NZHC 1496
Case: [2025] NZHC 1496
Decision Date: 9 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tatafu v The King involves an appeal by Ms Tatafu against a sentencing decision made by the District Court. The appellant, Ms Tatafu, was sentenced to two years and seven months’ imprisonment for causing loss by deception, with a starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment adjusted by various factors, including an uplift for her criminal history and discounts for an early guilty plea, age, and health issues. The appeal specifically challenges the 10 per cent discount applied for Ms Tatafu’s age and health. After the sentencing, Ms Tatafu suffered a stroke, and her legal representative sought to introduce new medical evidence to support a higher discount for her health conditions.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, focusing on the correctness of the end result rather than the sentencing process. Ms Tatafu's counsel argued for a 25 per cent discount, equating to an end sentence of two years' imprisonment, to be served under home detention. However, the court found that the 10 per cent discount applied by the District Court judge remained appropriate, even considering the new evidence of Ms Tatafu's stroke and its effects.

The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the original sentence. The judge noted that the 10 per cent discount was consistent with other cases where similar considerations were applied, and the new evidence did not warrant a significant increase in the discount.

Orders