Iongi v R - [2024] NZCA 522
Date of Judgment
16 October 2024
Decision
Summary
On the morning of 15 January 2020, Mrs Fisi'ihoi heard sounds outside her lounge window. She pulled back the curtain and was shot in the head by a person firing a shotgun through a window. She died instantly. Falala'angi (known as Falala) longi, his younger brother, Viliami longi, and their cousin Manu Iongi. were charged with Mrs Fisi'ihoi's murder.
Following a jury trial, Falala and Viliami Iongi were found guilty of murder. Manu longi was found guilty of manslaughter. Falala and Viliami Iongi were also found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in relation to events that occurred on 4 December 2019. Falala and Viliami Iongi had attended Mrs Fisi'ihoi's address, where she lived with her family, including her son, Stephen Fisi'ihoi. Falala and Viliami longi arrived with shotguns to confront Stephen Fisi'ihoi. Viliami Iongi fired two shots, one of which missed Stephen Fisi'ihoi, the other hitting Stephen's associate in the lower abdomen.
On 23 February 2024, Powell J sentenced Falala Iongi to life imprisonment with a minimum period or 17 years for the murder of Mrs Fisi'ihoi, and to concurrent sentences of eight years' imprisonment for discharge of a firearm and 10 years' imprisonment for the wounding charge. Manu Iongi was sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment with a minimum period of four years and three months for the manslaughter charge.
Manu longi has appealed both his conviction and sentence. Falala longi has appealed his sentence.
Criminal law - murder - parties to offences - conviction appeal-improperly obtained evidence - unreasonable verdict - inadequate summing up - sentence appeal
Manu Iongi appeals his sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive. He appeals his conviction on three grounds: that the High Court erred when it ruled Havea longi's evidence admissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006; that the jury's verdict was unreasonable; and that the Judge failed to adequately summarise Manu Iongi's case in his summing up to the jury.
Issue: should the appeal against conviction be allowed? Held: no.
While the police's failure to advise Havea longi that he was no longer under arrest and free to leave the police station before he commenced making his statement was improper and contravened s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the statement was correctly ruled admissible pursuant to s 30 or the Evidence Act.
As to unreasonable verdict the evidence presented was sufficient to enable the jury to infer that Manu Iongi was one of the men present at the address when Mrs Fisi'ihoi was killed. The jury were entitled to convict Manu Iongi of manslaughter pursuant to ss 66(1) or 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 as a party to the offence.
As to the Judge's summing up, while the Judge deliberately did not engage in a detailed analysis of the competing positions of the Crown and defence counsel, the question trail and the Judge's additional comments to the jury adequately explained the essence of Manu Iongi's defence. The defence case had been thoroughly presented by competent counsel and, given the combined effect of the Judge's explanation of the question trail and additional comments to the jury ensured no miscarriage of justice occurred through the way the Judge summed up Manu Iongi's defence.
Issue: Whether the appeal against sentence should be allowed? Held: no.
While the starting point adopted by Powell J was arguably high, it is within range. Further, when assessing the aggravating factors involved in the offending, we are satisfied that while the sentence imposed is on the higher side of the range available, it is not manifestly excessive.
Manu Iongi's appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
Criminal law - sentence appeal - minimum period of imprisonment - manifestly excessive
Falala Iongi appeals his sentence on the basis that the minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is manifestly excessive.
Issue: should the appeal against sentence be allowed? Held: yes.
The Judge was correct to set a minimum period of imprisonment under s 103 of the Sentencing Act 2002 that was far higher than 10 years. However, the minimum period imposed of 17 years was manifestly excessive. Falala longi's cultural report indicates he is motivated towards a pro-social life without his gang connections. Further, Falala longi was not the person who shot Mrs Fisi'ihoi and although he was found guilty of her murder, a more proportionate approach to his offending would have been to sentence him to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 15 years; the same minimum period that was imposed on the person who actually shot Mrs Fisi'ihoi.
Falala Iongi's appeal against sentence is allowed. The minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is quashed and substituted with a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years.
Following a jury trial, Falala and Viliami Iongi were found guilty of murder. Manu longi was found guilty of manslaughter. Falala and Viliami Iongi were also found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in relation to events that occurred on 4 December 2019. Falala and Viliami Iongi had attended Mrs Fisi'ihoi's address, where she lived with her family, including her son, Stephen Fisi'ihoi. Falala and Viliami longi arrived with shotguns to confront Stephen Fisi'ihoi. Viliami Iongi fired two shots, one of which missed Stephen Fisi'ihoi, the other hitting Stephen's associate in the lower abdomen.
On 23 February 2024, Powell J sentenced Falala Iongi to life imprisonment with a minimum period or 17 years for the murder of Mrs Fisi'ihoi, and to concurrent sentences of eight years' imprisonment for discharge of a firearm and 10 years' imprisonment for the wounding charge. Manu Iongi was sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment with a minimum period of four years and three months for the manslaughter charge.
Manu longi has appealed both his conviction and sentence. Falala longi has appealed his sentence.
Criminal law - murder - parties to offences - conviction appeal-improperly obtained evidence - unreasonable verdict - inadequate summing up - sentence appeal
Manu Iongi appeals his sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive. He appeals his conviction on three grounds: that the High Court erred when it ruled Havea longi's evidence admissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006; that the jury's verdict was unreasonable; and that the Judge failed to adequately summarise Manu Iongi's case in his summing up to the jury.
Issue: should the appeal against conviction be allowed? Held: no.
While the police's failure to advise Havea longi that he was no longer under arrest and free to leave the police station before he commenced making his statement was improper and contravened s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the statement was correctly ruled admissible pursuant to s 30 or the Evidence Act.
As to unreasonable verdict the evidence presented was sufficient to enable the jury to infer that Manu Iongi was one of the men present at the address when Mrs Fisi'ihoi was killed. The jury were entitled to convict Manu Iongi of manslaughter pursuant to ss 66(1) or 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 as a party to the offence.
As to the Judge's summing up, while the Judge deliberately did not engage in a detailed analysis of the competing positions of the Crown and defence counsel, the question trail and the Judge's additional comments to the jury adequately explained the essence of Manu Iongi's defence. The defence case had been thoroughly presented by competent counsel and, given the combined effect of the Judge's explanation of the question trail and additional comments to the jury ensured no miscarriage of justice occurred through the way the Judge summed up Manu Iongi's defence.
Issue: Whether the appeal against sentence should be allowed? Held: no.
While the starting point adopted by Powell J was arguably high, it is within range. Further, when assessing the aggravating factors involved in the offending, we are satisfied that while the sentence imposed is on the higher side of the range available, it is not manifestly excessive.
Manu Iongi's appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
Criminal law - sentence appeal - minimum period of imprisonment - manifestly excessive
Falala Iongi appeals his sentence on the basis that the minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is manifestly excessive.
Issue: should the appeal against sentence be allowed? Held: yes.
The Judge was correct to set a minimum period of imprisonment under s 103 of the Sentencing Act 2002 that was far higher than 10 years. However, the minimum period imposed of 17 years was manifestly excessive. Falala longi's cultural report indicates he is motivated towards a pro-social life without his gang connections. Further, Falala longi was not the person who shot Mrs Fisi'ihoi and although he was found guilty of her murder, a more proportionate approach to his offending would have been to sentence him to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 15 years; the same minimum period that was imposed on the person who actually shot Mrs Fisi'ihoi.
Falala Iongi's appeal against sentence is allowed. The minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is quashed and substituted with a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years.