Legal Research
Cases
Te Hiko v R

Te Hiko v R

Case [2019] NZCA 41 8 March 2019

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA321/2017
[2019] NZCA 41

BETWEEN	JAMES WILLIAM MANUOA TE HIKO Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 February 2019
Court:	Miller, Simon France and Peters JJ
Counsel:	DRF Gardiner for Appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	8 March 2019 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe application for leave to adduce new evidence is granted.
CBoth appeals are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Te Hiko appeals both his conviction for the murder of Nina Thompson and the minimum period of 17 years attached to his sentence of life imprisonment. He admits manslaughter but says that because he was impaired by alcohol and drug use he lacked murderous intent, and he claims that the evidence does not sustain an inference that he used a weapon (a steel pipe or bar). He says that trial counsel did not adequately advance his case on these issues. With respect to sentence, he says that the crime was not sufficiently brutal or callous to engage s 104(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The Crown case

Ms Thompson was killed at the home she shared with Mr Te Hiko. There were no eyewitnesses apart from Mr Te Hiko, whose evidence was plainly rejected by the jury, and also by the trial Judge, Gilbert J, at sentencing.[1] The Crown case rested on forensic evidence showing that Ms Thompson was beaten to death in the bedroom. A steel pipe was found with a hair and contact bloodstains on it. The blood was hers. She had many wounds, some defensive in nature. Head injuries caused her to lose consciousness and inhale blood, and perhaps vomit, which blocked her airways. Mr Te Hiko called the police the following morning. He admitted killing Ms Thompson with his hands and feet.

The trial

[1]R v Te Hiko [2017] NZHC 1260 [sentencing notes].

The Crown called 24 witnesses, including a pathologist, Dr Simon Stables, who recounted Ms Thompson’s injuries in detail. He counted at least 70 separate injuries. The pipe could have caused some of them, based on their size, depth and well-defined impact. There were no skull fractures, but deep injuries to the brain stem suggested that she had experienced blows that caused the brain to move and twist, with rapid loss of consciousness following. Under cross-examination Dr Stables accepted that most of Ms Thompson’s injuries would not have caused death and he could not exclude other causes of brain trauma, such as falling against furniture.
Mr Te Hiko deposed to his addiction to methamphetamine and abuse of alcohol and his efforts to seek treatment. He had been waiting for a place in a residential treatment facility at the time of the killing, which was triggered by conflict after Ms Thompson invited people around to drink, contrary to an agreed “safety plan” designed to keep him sober. He ended up…

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 Hiko v R

Details

AGLC: Te Hiko v R [2019] NZCA 41
Case: [2019] NZCA 41
Decision Date: 8 March 2019 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James William Manuoa Te Hiko appeals against his conviction for the murder of Nina Thompson and the minimum period of 17 years attached to his sentence of life imprisonment. The case was heard by Miller, Simon France, and Peters JJ. Te Hiko admits manslaughter but denies having the murderous intent required for a murder conviction. He claims that his drug and alcohol impairment rendered him incapable of such intent. He also contests the use of a steel pipe as a weapon and argues that trial counsel did not adequately advance his case on these issues. Regarding the sentence, Te Hiko argues that the crime was not sufficiently brutal or callous to warrant the application of s 104(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the trial counsel's performance was deficient and whether the evidence supports the inference that Te Hiko used a weapon. The court also had to determine if the crime was sufficiently brutal or callous to warrant the application of s 104(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court had to consider whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and whether the sentence was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial counsel's performance, noting that Te Hiko was adequately prepared and aware of the Crown evidence. The court found that the inference of the steel pipe being used as a weapon was well-nigh irresistible, and the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The Court of Appeal concluded that the facts of the case warranted the application of s 104(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002, and the sentence was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to adduce new evidence. However, both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

Orders