Vaeau v The King - [2024] NZHC 439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-266

[2024] NZHC 439

BETWEEN
WALTER DEAN VAEAU

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 29 February 2024

Appearances:

K Gray for Appellant

W J S Mohammed for Respondent

Judgment:

5 March 2024

Reissued:

8 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 March 2024 at 9 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

VAEAU v R [2024] NZHC 439 [5 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Walter Vaeau, pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure,1 and on 14 November 2023, he was sentenced two years and four months’ imprisonment.2

[2]Mr Vaeau appeals his sentence on the following grounds:

(a)the starting point of three years and two months’ imprisonment was too high;

(b)the Judge gave insufficient weight to the factors raised in the s 27 report;

(c)comments in the pre-sentence report about the victim should not have tempered any credit for remorse;

(d)the end sentence should have been under two years’ imprisonment; and

(e)Mr Vaeau should have been granted leave to apply for home detention.

Facts

[3] In the early hours of 18 April 2021, the victim was at a bar on Colombo Street, Christchurch. Mr Vaeau was also at the bar. He did not know the victim. At approximately 2.25 am, the victim walked out of the bar with Mr Vaeau following very close behind. As he got to the front door, Mr Vaeau tapped him on the arm causing him to turn and face him. Mr Vaeau immediately punched the victim once to the head, knocking the victim unconscious.

[4] The victim received severe traumatic brain injuries as a result of the assault. These included multiple haemorrhagic contusions to both sides of his brain, swelling of the right hemisphere of the brain and a fracture to the left parietal area of the victim’s

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2) – maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Vaeau [2023] NZDC 25308.

skull. In addition to the brain injuries, the victim suffered a laceration to his left upper lip. He spent 10 days at Christchurch Hospital and three weeks at the Kenepuru Brain Haemorrhage Unit.

Victim Impact statement

[5] The victim impact statement details the harm suffered by the victim as a result of the assault, including physical injuries, financial problems, and ongoing difficulties facing everyday life. The victim states he “endured the most horrendous scale of pain while in hospital” and has “lost a year of [his] life”. He says he has ongoing effects from the traumatic brain injury, including headaches, irritability and difficulty focusing.

[6] The victim explains how his small start-up business in real estate photography had to be put on the back burner, meaning the network of clients he had painstakingly built up was lost. He also explains the difficulties he had in transporting himself because he could…

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 Vaeau v The King

Details

AGLC: Vaeau v The King [2024] NZHC 439
Case: [2024] NZHC 439
Decision Date: 5 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Walter Dean Vaeau appealed his two years and four months’ imprisonment sentence for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure. He argued the starting point of three years and two months was too high, that insufficient weight was given to the factors raised in the s 27 report, that comments in the pre-sentence report about the victim should not have tempered credit for remorse, that the sentence should have been under two years’ imprisonment, and that he should have been granted leave to apply for home detention. The High Court found the starting point was excessive, granted a discount for the s 27 report, increased the discount for remorse, and substituted a two years’ imprisonment sentence with leave to apply for home detention. The Court also imposed special conditions on the offender as post-release conditions on imprisonment.

Orders