Te Awa v R

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.