Teki v The King - [2023] NZHC 3199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2023-483-15

[2023] NZHC 3199

BETWEEN
MICHAEL TE REHU FIELD TEKI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 25 October 2023 (via VMR)

Appearances:

J W Greenland for Appellant

I P L Barfucci and H R Hancock for Respondent

Judgment:

13 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] On 29 August 2023, in the Whanganui District Court, Judge Marinovich sentenced Mr Michael Teki (the appellant) to 22 months’ imprisonment, on five charges to which he pleaded guilty.1 Those charges were:2

(a)two charges of assault on a person in a family relationship (one in respect of a child, and the other in respect of an adult);3

(b)strangulation;4

(c)breach of a protection order;5 and

1      R v Teki [2023] NZDC 18758.
2      Some of these charges were Police charges. These were the breach of a protection order, and breach of a sentence of home detention. The remaining charges were brought by the Crown.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 189A(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a), 9, and 112(1)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

TEKI v R [2023] NZHC 3199 [13 November 2023]

(d)breach of a sentence of home detention.6

[2] Mr Teki appeals that sentence on the sole ground that the District Court Judge erred in refusing him leave to apply for home detention. He applies also to adduce further evidence on appeal.

[3] The Crown opposes Mr Teki’s appeal, and submits that the Judge did not err. Counsel submit that imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence in the circumstances that served the sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, community protection, and accountability. The Crown does not oppose Mr Teki’s application to admit further evidence, although counsel says that the test for admitting new evidence has not been satisfied as the new evidence is not fresh.

[4] For the reasons below, I consider that Mr Teki’s application to admit further evidence should be allowed, and that his appeal should be dismissed.

Factual background

The offending

[5] There were three episodes of offending, and three victims of family violence. Mr Teki has been in a relationship with the first victim for approximately one year. They do not have children, although the victim has children from a previous relationship. There have been nine previous family harm incidents between Mr Teki and the first victim.

[6] The first episode of offending relates to events beginning at about 9:45 pm on 8 December 2022. Mr Teki was at an address in Marton while the first victim was asleep. He was watching the first victim’s children. The children started to misbehave, and so Mr Teki put some spicy wasabi inside the mouth of one of the children to punish him (the second victim), who began to scream and cry, thereby waking the first victim. An aggressive and physical argument ensued between Mr Teki and the first victim, during which…

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 Teki v The King

Details

AGLC: Teki v The King [2023] NZHC 3199
Case: [2023] NZHC 3199
Decision Date: 13 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Teki (the appellant) appeals against his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Whanganui District Court on five charges to which he pleaded guilty, namely: two charges of assault on a person in a family relationship (one in respect of a child, and the other in respect of an adult), strangulation, breach of a protection order, and breach of a sentence of home detention. The sole ground of appeal is that the District Court Judge erred in refusing Mr Teki leave to apply for home detention. Mr Teki also seeks to adduce further evidence on appeal. The Crown opposes the appeal and does not oppose the application to adduce further evidence, although it argues that the test for admitting new evidence has not been satisfied as the new evidence is not fresh. Mr Teki’s appeal should be dismissed and his application to adduce further evidence allowed. The further evidence is highly relevant to the primary issue on appeal, and it is in the interests of justice that it be before this Court on appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders