Te Awa v R - [2014] NZCA 615

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA85/2014
[2014] NZCA 615

BETWEEN	PARAIRE HORI TE AWA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA101/2014
BETWEEN	DEAN MICHAEL ADDISON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 November 2014
Court:	Harrison, French and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	P J Kaye for Appellant Te Awa G C Gotlieb for Appellant Addison K Raftery and A J Pollett for Respondent
Judgment:	15 December 2014 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for leave to adduce fresh evidence are dismissed.

B Mr Te Awa’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CMr Te Awa’s appeal against sentence is allowed. The minimum period of imprisonment of 21 years is quashed and replaced with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years.
DMr Addison’s appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Mr Te Awa and Mr Addison were tried together in the High Court at Auckland on charges arising out of the disappearance of Ms Rae Portman.
The jury found Mr Te Awa guilty of murder and kidnapping. He was convicted and sentenced by Toogood J to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 21 years on the murder charge, and nine years’ imprisonment on the kidnapping charge.[1] He now appeals both convictions and his sentence.
[1]R v Te Awa [2014] NZHC 65.
Mr Addison was found guilty of kidnapping and two drug dealing offences. Justice Toogood sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of six years.[2] Mr Addison now appeals his conviction for kidnapping and his sentence.

Factual background

[2]R v Te Awa, above n 1.

Ms Portman and Mr Addison were both involved in dealing methamphetamine.
The Crown case was that in June 2012 Ms Portman was pressuring Mr Addison to repay a drug debt he owed her. In order to give her a fright and get her to leave him alone, Mr Addison engaged his “muscle man” Mr Te Awa to kidnap her. The plan was for Ms Portman to be abducted and taken to a remote area where she would be released to find her way home.
According to the Crown, Mr Te Awa kidnapped Ms Portman in Auckland on 20 June 2012. He bound and gagged her and then, with the assistance of another man, Mr Lee Rigby, he put her in a small space between the upright back seat and the rear hatch of her car. Mr Rigby was a drug runner for Mr Addison.
Mr Rigby then drove Ms Portman, bound and gagged in her car, to the Waikato. They followed behind Mr Te Awa, who was driving another vehicle. After a five hour journey involving three stops, they drove to a remote industrial site in Hamilton. Once there, Mr Te Awa pulled Ms Portman into a sitting position in the back of her car, placed a motorcycle strop around her neck and garrotted her.
After the murder Mr Rigby drove the body to a…

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 Te Awa v R

Details

AGLC: Te Awa v The Queen [2014] NZCA 615
Case: [2014] NZCA 615
Decision Date: 15 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Mr Te Awa and Mr Addison, were both convicted of offences arising from the disappearance of Ms Rae Portman. Mr Te Awa was convicted of murder and kidnapping, and Mr Addison was convicted of kidnapping and drug dealing offences. Both appellants appealed their convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Te Awa’s appeal against conviction but allowed his appeal against sentence. The minimum period of imprisonment of 21 years was quashed and replaced with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years. The Court of Appeal dismissed both of Mr Addison’s appeals.The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Te Awa’s argument that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice because of the proposed new evidence. The evidence was considered not credible. The Court of Appeal also rejected Mr Te Awa’s argument that the trial Judge had wrongly admitted two statements made by a Mr Drawbridge into evidence. The statements were properly admitted and the Judge had given the jury comprehensive and carefully considered directions regarding the factors they should consider when weighing the evidence.The Court of Appeal held that the trial Judge erred in taking lack of remorse into account as an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeal also agreed that Mr Te Awa’s previous convictions were not sufficient to justify an uplift of 12 months. The Court of Appeal reduced the minimum period of imprisonment by one year to 20 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Addison’s grounds of appeal. The evidence proposed as new evidence was not credible. The trial Judge had given adequate directions to counter the risk of unfair prejudice. There was no obligation on the trial Judge to give any direction about corroboration. The failure of trial counsel to cross-examine a police witness had not resulted in any miscarriage of justice. The totality principle was properly applied. The imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment was justified.

Orders