escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Sione Uluakiola

Sione Tau Uluakiola

Alias

.

Offences

Murdered his wife with a piece of wood in Otara, South Auckland, in February 2005
Also intentionally caused grevious bodily harm to her cousin and assaulted another cousin

Victims

Kalolina Uluakiola

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1969

Current Location

Prison

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to a minimum 17 years non-parole in March 2006
Earliest parole date March 2022

Background
NZ Herald story here
From NZ Lawyer 15th November 2006

A man who killed his wife after she threw him out of the family home appealed his conviction and sentence for murder today. Sione Uluakiola, was convicted this year of the murder of his wife, Kalolina Uluakiola, in Otara, in February 2005, when he was aged 36. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. Uluakiola battered his wife to death with a piece of wood, after she threw him out of the house telling him she and their children no longer needed him. Uluakiola also assaulted a second woman in the house, and was convicted of grievous bodily harm for that assault, along with threatening to kill, and assault with a weapon.

In the Court of Appeal today, defence lawyer Chris Wilkinson-Smith appealed Uluakiola's convictions for murder, threatening to kill, and the non-parole period. He told the court the trial judge had erred in ruling evidence regarding the provocation argument inadmissable. He said Uluakiola's traditional Tongan upbringing meant the act of his wife throwing him out should have been given more weight when considering provocation. Uluakiola was born and raised in a traditional Tongan village and despite living in New Zealand since 1989, he did not speak English as he had a learning disability. He mixed in a tight knit Tongan community in South Auckland.

Mr Wilkinson-Smith argued this background meant the act of telling Uluakiola he was not needed as the head of his family should have been given more gravity in considering provocation as a defence to murder. The judge had not accepted evidence from an anthropology expert that fatherhood was regarded as more important within the Tongan culture than in New Zealand. "That should have been something that the jury could have considered in determining the gravity of provocation and whether that should be something that could have added to a person losing control," he said. Under questioning from Justice Mark O'Regan he said he was not attempting to defend murder on a cultural basis, but trying to show it should be given weight when considering the seriousness of provocation.

However, the justices said the trial judge had based his decision on a 30-year-old case, which they did not have the power to overturn and suggested he would have to take that point in the Supreme Court if he wanted to pursue it. Mr Wilkinson-Smith also argued against the length of Uluakiola's non-parole period, which at 17 years was the maximum. The judge should have taken Uluakiola's depressed and suicidal state into account as mitigating factors, and the fact that as a non-English speaker, his time in prison would be more isolated and severe than for other prisoners. He could not learn the language whilst in prison due to his learning disability, Mr Wilkinson-Smith said. He suggested between 13 and 15 years would be an appropriate non-parole period. The justices reserved their decision.

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top