Tekuru-Reid v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 2419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI 2018-463-0071

[2018] NZHC 2419

BETWEEN
AZTEC TEKURU-REID

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 13 September 2018

Appearances:

W T Nabney for the Appellant R W Jenson for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 September 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitor:
William Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga

TEKURU-REID v R [2018] NZHC 2419 [13 September 2018]

Introduction

[1] Aztec Tekuru-Reid appeals his sentence of six years’ imprisonment for offending against his then partner.1

[2] Mr Tekuru-Reid pleaded guilty to breaking into his partner’s house while she was sleeping in her bedroom at night. He proceeded to punch her face and head repeatedly, strangle her, and threaten to kill her. On arrest by police, he then abused and assaulted a police officer. He was convicted of injuring with intent to cause bodily harm,2 threatening to kill,3 assault on police,4 and wilful damage.5

[3]Judge Hollister-Jones sentenced Mr Tekuru-Reid on 12 July 2018, imposing:

(a)a seven years and six months’ starting point for the totality of the offending;

(b)a six-month uplift for his previous offending (which included his prior assault on his present victim); and

(c)a 25 percent discount for his guilty plea and “acceptance of responsibility”.

Issues

[4] Mr Tekuru-Reid’s counsel, William Nabney, argues the sentence is manifestly excessive because:

(a)a starting point closer to five years, possibly uplifted by a further three to six months for the assault charge, better reflects his total culpability; and

(b)he should have been credited with an eight to ten per cent reduction for remorse, in addition to the full 25 per cent reduction for his guilty plea.

1      R v Tekuru-Reid [2018] NZDC 14218.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 306(1)(a). Maximum sentence is 7 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 192(2). Maximum sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a). Maximum sentence is 3 months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.

[5] I must allow Mr Tekuru-Reid’s appeal if I am satisfied – whether in relation to one of these two stated objections or otherwise – there is an error in the sentence imposed on him, and a different sentence should be imposed. In any other case, I must dismiss the appeal against sentence.6

[6] The approach previously taken by courts on sentencing appeals continues to apply;7 the measure of error is the sentence be “manifestly excessive”.8 I will not intervene where the sentence is within a range properly justified by accepted sentencing principles. Whether a sentence is ‘manifestly excessive’ is to be assessed in terms of the sentence given, rather than the process by which it is reached.9

[7] I now address each issue in turn, after first outlining the offending in more detail.

Offending

[8] The offending occurred early in the morning of 24 June 2017. At a party previously that night, Mr Tekuru-Reid argued with his partner of five months. She left the…

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 Tekuru-Reid v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Tekuru-Reid v The Queen [2018] NZHC 2419
Case: [2018] NZHC 2419
Decision Date: 13 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aztec Tekuru-Reid appeals the six-year imprisonment sentence imposed on him for multiple charges related to a violent attack on his partner. The attack, which occurred in June 2017, involved breaking into his partner's house while she was asleep, assaulting her, and threatening to kill her. Tekuru-Reid also assaulted a police officer during his arrest. The central issues in the appeal are whether the starting point for the sentence was correctly determined and if an additional discount for remorse was warranted.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the starting point of seven years and six months was appropriate, given the totality of Tekuru-Reid's offending. The Court noted that while the premeditation element was limited, the attack involved extreme violence, including strangulation, and caused significant harm. The Court found that the Judge's starting point was justified and consistent with established sentencing principles. Regarding the discounts, the Court found that the 25 percent reduction for the guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility was appropriate, and there was no need for an additional discount for remorse, given Tekuru-Reid's inconsistent stance on taking responsibility for his actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence.

Orders