Taufui v The King - [2023] NZHC 2619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-000335 CRI-2023-404-000336

CRI-2023-404-000337 [2023] NZHC 2619

ONESI TAUFUI

Appellant

v

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2023

Appearances:

B C S Moyer for Appellant S E Cann for Respondent

Judgment:

27 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Appeal against sentence

Solicitors/Counsel: BCS Moyer, Auckland
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

TAUFUI v THE KING [2023] NZHC 2619 [27 September 2023]

[1] Mr Onesi Taufu’i appeals his sentence of 30 months imprisonment following guilty pleas on three sets of separate charges in the Auckland District Court.

[2] His sets of offending, committed between December 2021 and April 2022, were as follows:1

(a)set one: burglary2 and wilful damage3;

(b)set two: driving with blood containing evidence of use of controlled drug (methamphetamine and cannabis)4 and operating a vehicle carelessly5; and

(c)set three: arson,6 assault with a weapon,7 conversion,8 driving in a dangerous manner,9 and failure to stop when followed by flashing red and blue lights.10

Facts

First set of offending

[3] On the afternoon of 10 December 2021, Mr Taufu’i entered a property and used an object to smash a glass panel to gain entry to the house. Once inside the house, Mr Taufu’i went through the house and smashed various items. As he returned to his car, he saw a witness watching him from outside her house. He then returned to the house and there was more smashing heard before he returned to his car and left.

1      I record for completeness that I have identified the sections I consider to be the relevant charging provisions. It does not affect the outcome.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 58(1). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine.
5      Section 37(1). Maximum penalty or a $3,000 fine.
6      Crimes Act, s 267(2)(a). Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
7      Section 202C. Maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
8      Section 226(1). Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
9      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(b). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine.
10     Section 52A(1)(a)(ii) and (3). Maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine.

[4] The police found the presence of blood in three areas of the house. The blood was swabbed and analysed and found to contain Mr Taufu’i’s DNA.

Second set of offending

[5] At about 11:30pm on 5 April 2022, Mr Taufu’i drove a motor vehicle on the Northern Motorway. He lost control of the vehicle and slid at high speed towards the centre median barrier. He collided with the median barrier and his vehicle spun several times back towards the left-hand lane before rolling backwards towards the emergency breakdown shoulder under the Wellington Street overbridge.

[6] Accompanied by police, Mr Taufu’i was transported by St John’s ambulance to hospital where a blood specimen was taken. Upon analysis, that blood…

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 Taufui v The King

Details

AGLC: Taufui v The King [2023] NZHC 2619
Case: [2023] NZHC 2619
Decision Date: 27 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Onesi Taufu’i, appeals against his sentence of 30 months imprisonment imposed by the Auckland District Court following his guilty pleas on three sets of separate charges. The charges include burglary, wilful damage, driving with blood containing evidence of drug use, careless driving, arson, assault with a weapon, conversion, dangerous driving, and failure to stop when followed by flashing red and blue lights. The appeal focuses on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly regarding the starting point for the arson charge, the discount for personal circumstances, the lack of a discount for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail, and the absence of a discount for remorse.

The court considered the arguments presented by both Mr Moyer, representing the appellant, and Ms Cann, representing the Crown. The appellant argued that the starting point for the arson charge was excessive, the discount for personal circumstances was inadequate, and additional discounts should have been applied for addiction and time spent on EM bail. The Crown defended the sentence, asserting that the starting point was appropriate, and no additional discounts were warranted. The court found that while there should have been some recognition of the lengthy period spent on EM bail and a greater discount for personal circumstances including remorse, the overall discount of 47 per cent and the resulting sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment was appropriate.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and reduced it to 26 months’ imprisonment. The court rejected the suggestion that home detention might be the most appropriate sentence, given the complexity of commuting the sentence and the seriousness of the offending, particularly the arson charge. The balance of considerations favored the completion of the shortened prison sentence.

Orders