Turi v R

Case [2014] NZCA 254 18 June 2014

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA690/2013
[2014] NZCA 254

BETWEEN	HARLEM RAWIRI TURI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	27 May 2014
Court:	Harrison, Ronald Young and Simon France JJ
Counsel:	C W J Stevenson for Appellant H W Ebersohn for Respondent
Judgment:	18 June 2014 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.
BThe sentence imposed in the High Court of eight years and three months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months is quashed.
CIn substitution a sentence of six and a half years imprisonment with a minimum period of three years and three months imprisonment is imposed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

Harlem Turi was found guilty of the manslaughter of Michael Mulholland following a trial before Dobson J and a jury in the High Court at Wellington. He was convicted and sentenced to eight years and three months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months.[1] He appeals only against his sentence.

High Court

[1]R v Turi [2013] NZHC 2411.

One evening in September 2012 Mr Turi and an associate, who had been drinking together earlier, visited Mr Mulholland in Lower Hutt. He was well-known locally as a drug dealer. Both visitors were affiliated to the Mongrel Mob gang. Mr Mulholland advised that he was unable to oblige their request for some methamphetamine. Mr Turi’s associate responded by punching Mr Mulholland, not for the purpose of causing harm but apparently to scare or intimidate him into supplying drugs.
When sentencing Mr Turi, Dobson J described what happened next as follows:
[6]       You then followed suit, inflicting a number of blows to Mr Mulholland’s head and neck. Your assault caused significant injuries including fractures to nasal bones and to the orbital socket around one of Mr Mulholland’s eyes, together with abrasions elsewhere on his face and a break to thyroid cartilage in his neck. Mr Mulholland bled quite profusely, with blood in both the kitchen and bathroom of his house.
…
[9]       Your assault on Mr Mulholland did not force him to produce any methamphetamine and you left the house shortly after inflicting the beating. The injuries you inflicted were not, in themselves, fatal.
[10]     On your way down Mr Mulholland’s driveway, you confronted Ms Moss, snatching $100 out of her hand, and proceeded on to another address on Farmer Crescent.
[11]     For her part, Ms Moss went into Mr Mulholland’s house and observed him with a badly beaten face and in an apparently distressed state. Mr Leaf stayed behind to help clean Mr Mulholland up and shortly after that Mr Mulholland was able to drive himself a short distance down Farmer Crescent to another address. There he got out of his car and began a conversation with Mr Taurima, but shortly after that collapsed and died. It transpired that Mr Mulholland had a severely weakened heart and I am satisfied that…

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 Turi v R

Details

AGLC: Turi v R [2014] NZCA 254
Case: [2014] NZCA 254
Decision Date: 18 June 2014 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harlem Turi appealed against his sentence for manslaughter imposed by the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of six and a half years imprisonment with a minimum period of three years and three months. Turi was found guilty of manslaughter for his role in the assault of Michael Mulholland, which led to Mulholland’s death. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point of seven years and three months was too high, and instead found the appropriate starting point to be five and a half years. The Court of Appeal considered the nature of Turi’s culpability and found that the appropriate sentence should reflect the violence used, but also consider the unintended nature of the death. The Court of Appeal also found that the minimum period of imprisonment should be reduced from four years and three months to three years and three months.

Orders