R v Poata [2014] NZHC 1028 (16 May 2014)

Last Updated: 23 May 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2013-019-000931 [2014] NZHC 1028

THE QUEEN

v

_{MALCOLM FRASER POATA}

Hearing:	16 May 2014
Appearances:	R G Douch for the Crown D L Bates for the Defendant
Judgment:	16 May 2014

_{SENTENCING NOTES OF GILBERT J}

R v POATA [2014] NZHC 1028 [16 May 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Poata, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of manslaughter. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.

Facts

[2] On the night of 16/17 February 2013, you and a number of others were celebrating the birthday of a prominent member of the Taupiri Motorcycle Club, which was taking place on a property owned by the club. You are, or were, a patched member of that club.

[3] In the early hours of the morning the victim, Mr Moana, a club prospect, got into a dispute with Mr Wade, a fellow club prospect. Mr Wade, who is slightly built, punched Mr Moana a couple of times but did not knock him to the ground. At this point you came over and punched Mr Moana repeatedly on the head and chest. After knocking him to the ground, you picked him up so that he was in a half-standing position before punching him again. You knocked Mr Moana back down to the ground. You left him there and made no attempt to assist him.

[4] Mr Moana died as a result of the injuries he sustained. These included a 5-6 centimetre bilateral haematoma, a 7 by 5 centimetre bruise on the left side of the chest, an 8 by 1 centimetre bruise on his back between his shoulder blades, deep bruising in the mid to upper back, and fractures of the T3 and T6 vertebrae. The pathologist’s evidence was that the fractures suffered by Mr Moana are those typically caused by car accidents, motor cycle accidents or where people have fallen from a great height. He said that a very significant amount of force is required to cause these fractures. The pathologist described the bruising to the left side of Mr Moana’s chest as “very, very heavy”.

[5] It is implicit in the jury’s verdict, and it is also my conclusion having heard the evidence, that you were responsible for inflicting the majority of these injuries which required multiple punches and resulted in Mr Moana being knocked to the ground twice. You continued to punch him even after you had initially knocked him down. You lifted him off the ground to do so. There can be no doubt that in

punching Mr Moana repeatedly, as you did, you intended to cause him really serious injury.

[6] I have read and considered the heart-rending victim impact statements prepared by the members of Mr Moana’s family. You have heard these read to the Court this morning. Mr Moana is described as a man who, despite all the difficulties he faced in life, cared deeply about his family and was always kind to others. Understandably, his family continue to struggle in coming to terms with the fact that Mr Moana was so senselessly taken from them in such a violent manner. They feel his loss acutely, every day.

Approach to Sentencing

[7] In sentencing you today I am required to have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. So far as possible I must impose a sentence that is consistent with the sentences imposed on other offenders for similar offending. In a case such as this, I must impose a sentence that adequately reflects the serious harm that you have caused and denounces serious violent offending of this nature. I am obliged, nevertheless, to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

[8] In determining the appropriate sentence, I commence by setting a starting point with reference to other similar cases and taking into account any aggravating or mitigating features of your offending. From this starting point, I must take into account any factors personal to you which might require an uplift or a discount.

Starting Point

[9] There is no tariff case for manslaughter because of the range of circumstances in which this offence may be committed. However, the Court of Appeal has indicated that it is appropriate in cases where serious injury was intended, to compare the offending to the guideline which it has given for serious violence and then to consider other similar cases of manslaughter.

[10] The Court of Appeal guideline for serious violence sets out three bands of offending which attract different ranges of sentences. In order to place the offending within a particular band, it is necessary to consider any aggravating features of the offending.

[11] I consider that your offending involved the following aggravating features:

(a) First, the severity of the injuries. Mr Moana died as a result of his injuries.

(b) Second, there was a high level of violence involved. However, these factors are closely allied in this case I will therefore treat them effectively as one.

(c) Third, your attack involved punches to the head.

(d) Fourth, I take into account that you were not the sole attacker. You attacked Mr Moana immediately after he was attacked by Mr Wade. However, I consider that this factor has limited significance in your case.

[12] Taking these factors into account, I consider that your offending falls into the second band of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Taueki. This indicates that a sentence of the order of seven years’ imprisonment would be appropriate in this case.

[13] I have considered other similar cases of manslaughter, including those referred to by Counsel. These cases also indicate that the appropriate starting point in your case is a term of seven years’ imprisonment. Both counsel accept that this is the appropriate starting point in your case.

Personal Factors

[14] I turn now to consider personal factors. You have four previous convictions for violence including a conviction for wounding with intent, although that is now historical given that it occurred in 1997. You committed the present offence while

you were subject to a sentence of intensive supervision that was imposed on

15 November 2012. I consider that an uplift of 12 months is required to reflect these matters.

[15] You have accepted responsibility for what you have done. You have also expressed remorse to Mr Moana’s family. The Crown accepts, as do I, that your remorse is genuine. I therefore allow a five per cent discount to your sentence to take into account that factor.

[16] Mr Bates argues that I should reduce your sentence to take into account that you spent nine months on bail in a residential treatment facility. You were subject to a 24 hour curfew at all times and were not able to leave the facility without direct and constant supervision. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that in appropriate cases an allowance should be made for time spent under restrictive bail conditions and I consider that this is such a case. I consider that the appropriate reduction for this is five months.

[17] This gives an end sentence of seven years and two months’ imprisonment.

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

[18] Finally, I need to consider whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. Because you are to be sentenced for a term of imprisonment greater than two years the Court may impose a minimum period of imprisonment longer than the period that would otherwise be applicable under the Parole Act 2002. However, this can only be imposed if the Court is satisfied that the normal parole period is insufficient for any of the purposes set out in s 86 of the Sentencing Act. A minimum period of imprisonment is generally imposed in cases involving serious violence, such as this.

[19] The Crown submits that a minimum period of imprisonment, being two- thirds of the full term of your sentence, should be imposed. Mr Bates, on the other hand submits there should be no minimum period of imprisonment or, if one is imposed, it should not exceed half of the end sentence.

[20] Having regard to all of the factors I have already discussed in setting the sentence, and in particular having regard to the degree of violence involved, your indifference to Mr Moana’s plight at the time and your history of violent offending, I consider that the normal release period applicable under the Parole Act is insufficient to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused, to denounce your conduct and to deter you and others from this type of very serious violent offending. However, I consider that these purposes of sentencing can be met by the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of your end term namely, three years and seven months’ imprisonment.

Sentence

[21] Mr Poata, would you please now stand. Following your conviction for manslaughter I sentence you to seven years and two months’ imprisonment. You are to serve a minimum of three years and seven months’ imprisonment.

_{[22] You may stand down.}

M A Gilbert J