Vai Feterika v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 31/2008
[2008] NZSC 67
VAI FETERIKA
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:I Sapolu and J Milo for Applicant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:27 August 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS
[1]       This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The complaint concerns the way the Court of Appeal dealt with rehabilitation and an issue of alleged disparity in relation to the sentence imposed on a co-offender.
[2]       In relation to rehabilitation the Court of Appeal took the view that the applicant’s prior convictions for serious violent offending, coupled with his leading role in the serious offending in this case, justified the sentence and said that rehabilitation was a matter for prison authorities.
[3]       On disparity the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the applicant’s circumstances were quite different from those of another co-offender in relation to whom it is said there was a disparity.
[4]       No question of principle warranting an appeal to this Court arises in these circumstances. Nor is there any basis for an argument that there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to the sentence. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Solicitors:
Sapolu Law, Manurewa for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal from Vai Feterika against a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The applicant's counsel argued that the Court of Appeal had improperly considered the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation and that there was an unjust disparity in the sentencing between the applicant and a co-offender. The Crown's counsel opposed the application, arguing that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the Court of Appeal had appropriately considered the applicant's circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its consideration of rehabilitation and whether there was an unjust disparity in the sentencing. The Court of Appeal had held that the applicant's prior convictions and leading role in the offence justified the sentence, and that rehabilitation was a matter for prison authorities. The Court of Appeal had also found that the applicant's circumstances were different from those of the co-offender, and thus no disparity existed. The Court needed to determine whether these findings warranted an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had not erred in its consideration of rehabilitation or in finding no unjust disparity in the sentencing. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that no question of principle warranted an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court did not find any basis for an argument that there had been a miscarriage of justice in relation to the sentence.

The Supreme Court's final order was that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's findings were appropriate and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The applicant's sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established