Teilauea v R - [2014] NZCA 391

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA171/2014
[2014] NZCA 391

BETWEEN	TEILAUEA TEILAUEA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	23 July 2014
Court:	Stevens, Lang and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	T Faleauto for Appellant K A L Bicknell for Respondent
Judgment:	14 August 2014 at 2.45 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

Introduction

The appellant was found guilty following a jury trial of five counts of assault on a child, two counts of assault with a weapon, and one further count of assault with intent to injure. He was sentenced by Judge Treston to two years and three months’ imprisonment.[1] The appellant appeals against sentence on the grounds that it was based on an incorrect assessment of some significant facts or alternatively, the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

Background

[1]R v Teilauea DC Manukau CRI-2011-055-1425, 29 November 2013.

The appellant lived with his four stepchildren and their mother in late 2009 and early 2010. He was charged with 16 counts of violent offending against those children when they were aged between four and 10. He was convicted of eight of those charges, namely:
(a)assaulting his 10 year old stepdaughter by throwing a steel cap boot at her and a further charge of assaulting her with a metal plate bar;
(b)two charges of assaulting his eight year old stepson; and one charge of assaulting him with a metal plate bar;
(c)two representative charges of assaulting each of his four year old twin stepdaughters with a wooden spoon; and
(d)injuring one of those twins with intent to injure by knocking her head into the wall and pulling her hair.
Judge Treston summarised the offending at sentencing thus:[2]
[2] … during the relevant period the evidence effectively was that you regularly hit two of them on the hands and thighs with a wooden spoon. On one occasion during the relevant period the evidence was that you struck all four of the children around Christmas time in the lounge of the Papakura address during the relevant period. You were angry because one of the children you said was being clingy and you thought the children were planning to run away. You began by hitting one of them on the hands and thighs with a wooden spoon until it broke, you then knocked that child’s head against the wall at least once and pulled her hair, and then the other children came into the lounge and you fetched a metal bar used to separate the door from the floor, this was obtained from the laundry area, you used that metal plate bar to hit two of the children on the hands and legs and one of them hard enough to draw blood, the evidence was. You then also threw one of your work boots which was steel capped at one of the children, striking that child on the cheek, and during the relevant period two other charges, which were…

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 Teilauea v R

Details

AGLC: Teilauea v R [2014] NZCA 391
Case: [2014] NZCA 391
Decision Date: 14 August 2014 at 2.45 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Teilauea, was convicted of multiple charges of assault against his stepchildren and was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment by Judge Treston. He appealed against the sentence, claiming it was based on incorrect facts or was excessively harsh. The Court of Appeal, comprising Stevens, Lang, and Clifford JJ, dismissed the appeal. The court found that the sentencing judge was in the best position to assess the facts, and the evidence supported the judge's findings. The court also considered the appellant's contention that the sentence was excessively severe, but concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the serious nature of the offending and the lack of mitigating factors. The court found no basis for the claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The final orders were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders