Vea v R

Case [2020] NZCA 68 19 March 2020

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA351/2019
[2020] NZCA 68

BETWEEN	UETA VEA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	27 February 2020
Court:	Clifford, Simon France and Lang JJ
Counsel:	L L Tu’i for Appellant B C L Charmley for Respondent
Judgment:	19 March 2020 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to admit the affidavit of trial counsel is granted.
BThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
CThe minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is quashed. A minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years and six months is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Mr Vea pleaded guilty to a charge of murder and was sentenced by Moore J to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years.[1] He appeals the length of the MPI.

Facts

[1]R v Vea [2019] NZHC 1587.

Annoyed at what he suspected was an inappropriate relationship between his wife and the victim, Mr Vea armed himself with a machete. He went to the victim’s house knowing the victim was not in but would soon return. Mr Vea gained entry through a window and waited. As the victim entered, Mr Vea immediately attacked him with the machete.
The agreed summary of facts describes a number of strikes to the back of the neck, under the chin, and to the victim’s torso, hand, left shoulder and left ear. The assault caused a traumatic injury to the base of the skull. It severed the spinal cord and vertebrae, and would have caused paralysis. It also lacerated the vertebral artery. Some of the other lacerations reached the bone. There was significant blood loss.
The summary records that Mr Vea heard Mr Liuasi ask for help during the assault. When Mr Liuasi became motionless, Mr Vea is said to have rolled him over and observed him for two minutes before leaving. These detailed items are obviously sourced in Mr Vea’s accounts, he and the victim being the only persons present.
Mr Vea left in Mr Liuasi’s car and drove to near where his wife was. He parked the car, walked to her address and told her what he had done. They drove to the local church grounds on which was situated the house where Mr Liuasi lay. The priest was spoken to and they all went to the house. Police were called and Mr Vea was arrested and interviewed. He made full admissions.

Sentencing

In the High Court, Moore J found two of the factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 to be present. The first — unlawful entry into a dwelling house (s 104(1)(c)) — was not in dispute. The second — a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness (s 104(1)(e)) — was contested. The Judge considered the number of blows delivered in a frenzied attack met the high level required by s 104, and constituted brutality.[2] He found that Mr Vea’s conduct…

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 Vea v R

Details

AGLC: Vea v R [2020] NZCA 68
Case: [2020] NZCA 68
Decision Date: 19 March 2020 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Vea, appealed against the length of the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) imposed by Moore J. Mr Vea was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 17 years. The Court of Appeal considered three aspects of the appeal: the starting point for the sentence, the size of the mitigation reduction, and the decision to impose the s 104 figure. The Court found that the starting point of 17 and a half years was appropriate, considering the home invasion, the blindside attack involving multiple strikes, and the degree of callousness. The Court also found that the one-year deduction for mitigating factors was insufficient, and that two years was the appropriate figure. The Court concluded that to lift the otherwise applicable minimum non-parole period by 18 months, from 15 and a half years to 17 years, would be manifestly unjust. The appeal against the length of the MPI was allowed, and the MPI was reduced to 15 years and six months. The underlying sentence of life imprisonment was unaffected.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the length of the MPI, reducing it from 17 years to 15 years and six months. The underlying sentence of life imprisonment was not affected by the appeal. The Court found that the starting point for the sentence was appropriate, but that the one-year deduction for mitigating factors was insufficient. The Court also found that to lift the otherwise applicable minimum non-parole period by 18 months would be manifestly unjust. The Court admitted the affidavit of trial counsel, which assisted to clarify matters and supported the appeal point. The Court considered that Mr Vea's guilty plea was entered at the earliest opportunity, and that the ifoga process, although not directly involving Mr Vea, constituted an offer to make amends. The Court considered that two years was the appropriate figure for the mitigating factors, and that an MPI of 17 years would represent very little credit for these factors and the plea.

Orders