Legal Research
Cases
Te Pana v R

Te Pana v R

Case [2014] NZCA 55 7 March 2014

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA487/2013
[2014] NZCA 55

BETWEEN	PATRICK KOTI TE PANA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	3 March 2014
Court:	Randerson, Venning and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	C Muston for Appellant M D Downs and Z R Hamill for Respondent
Judgment:	7 March 2014 at 12:30pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Venning J)

Introduction

Following a jury trial in the High Court, Patrick Te Pana was convicted of manslaughter. Woolford J sentenced Mr Te Pana to eight years, six months imprisonment and imposed a minimum non-parole period of five years.[1] Mr Te Pana appeals against the sentence on the grounds it is manifestly excessive and the minimum non-parole period was not justified.

Background

[1]R v Tepana [2013] NZHC 1592.

Mr Te Pana killed his stepfather, Christopher Edwards. Mr Edwards had been Mr Te Pana’s mother’s partner for 30 years. At the time of the offending Mr Te Pana was 41 years old. Mr Edwards was 61 years old.
On 10 January 2012, Mr Te Pana was at his mother and stepfather’s home. He was bailed to their address with a curfew because he was facing charges of assault (to which he later pleaded guilty) against his own partner. A number of family members gathered at the address that evening. All were consuming alcohol in the kitchen/dining room area. Mr Te Pana became angry at Mr Edwards. He was jealous of Mr Edward’s friendship with his partner. While Mr Edwards was sitting in a chair, Mr Te Pana stood up and punched him several times to the head and face with his fists. Mr Edwards had no opportunity to defend himself and did not retaliate. Other family members had to intervene to stop the assault. Mr Edwards was left with a black eye and a cut above his lip.
The next day family members discovered Mr Edwards in an unconscious and unresponsive state in his bed. He had vomited blood and bile throughout his bed. An ambulance was called. Mr Edwards was assessed to be in a critical condition. An emergency helicopter transported him to Whangarei Hospital. At the hospital he was found to have a significant bleed in his brain. Despite emergency surgery at Auckland Hospital Mr Edwards died in the early hours of 13 January 2012. The cause of death was a subdural brain haemorrhage consistent with blunt force trauma as a result of an assault.
When spoken to by the police Mr Te Pana sought to minimise his actions. He said that he had only given the victim “three smacks”.

Sentence

In sentencing Mr Te Pana, Woolford J took a starting point of eight years imprisonment for the offending. In doing so the Judge referred to this Court’s decisions in R v Tai and R v Taueki in particular.[2] The Judge also said that he was concerned about the levels of violence in Northland. Woolford J then uplifted…

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 Pana v R

Details

AGLC: Te Pana v R [2014] NZCA 55
Case: [2014] NZCA 55
Decision Date: 7 March 2014 at 12:30pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Te Pana v R, Patrick Koti Te Pana appeals against his conviction of manslaughter and the sentence imposed by Woolford J. Te Pana was sentenced to eight years and six months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of five years. The appeal focuses on whether the sentence is manifestly excessive and whether the minimum non-parole period was justified. The Crown argues that the sentence is appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the need to denounce alcohol-fuelled violence and protect the community.

The court examines whether the sentence imposed by Woolford J was appropriate, taking into account the aggravating features of the case. The court notes that the attack on the victim was unprovoked, involved multiple serious blows to the head, and ultimately led to the victim's death. The court also considers Te Pana's history of violence, which supports an uplift in the starting point. The court concludes that the sentence of eight years and six months was within the range available to Woolford J, having regard to the circumstances of the offending in this case and the aggravating features personal to Te Pana.

The court further examines whether the imposition of a minimum non-parole period was justified. The Crown did not seek a minimum period of imprisonment, but the court considers that a standard minimum period of imprisonment would have been insufficient to hold Te Pana accountable for the harm he caused, to denounce his conduct, and to deter him and others from committing similar offending. The court concludes that the minimum non-parole period was justified and necessary to protect the community.

In conclusion, the appeal against sentence is dismissed. The court affirms that the sentence imposed by Woolford J was appropriate and that the minimum non-parole period was justified.

Orders