Legal Research
Cases
Arahanga v R

Arahanga v R

Case [2014] NZCA 379 8 August 2014

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA235/2014
[2014] NZCA 379

BETWEEN	WIREMU ARAHANGA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	30 July 2014
Court:	Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ
Counsel:	T Sutcliffe for Appellant K A L Bicknell for Crown
Judgment:	8 August 2014 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Introduction

This is an appeal against an effective sentence of eight years’ imprisonment imposed on charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, aggravated robbery, burglary and two counts of aggravated assault. The appeal is brought on the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
The appellant, Wiremu Arahanga pleaded guilty on the morning of trial to the most serious of the charges, that of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and to the associated charge of aggravated robbery. Some seven weeks earlier he had pleaded guilty to burglary and two charges of aggravated assault. All charges arose from three separate incidents of offending committed jointly with his older half-brother, Mr Ropitini, during the early hours of 1 January 2013.
The basis upon which it is said the sentence imposed on Mr Arahanga was manifestly excessive is:

that the levels of culpability between Messrs Arahanga and Ropitini were not sufficiently differentiated in the starting point;
the starting point in Mr Arahanga’s case was too high and should have been set within band two of R v Taueki;[1] and
insufficient weight was accorded to his guilty pleas and his youthfulness.

Factual background

[1]R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).

At the time of the offending Mr Arahanga was aged 17 years and Mr Ropitini 25 years. The first incident occurred at their aunt’s house. Both men punched a man who was present and Mr Ropitini also grabbed the man’s partner around her neck when she tried to intervene.
The two were asked to leave and began walking home. On the way, they got into an argument with the second victim, who they did not know, at his front gate. He told them to leave and went to a garage on his property. Messrs Arahanga and Ropitini followed him into the garage and struck him on the head from behind, causing him to fall to his knees. While the victim was on the ground, the two men kicked him in the face and struck him about the head and upper body with an empty beer bottle, which broke during the attack. In an attempt to protect his head during the attack the victim raised his right arm and sustained a deep laceration down his arm from the shoulder to the elbow. He also suffered a deep laceration to the back of his head. He was left lying on the ground bleeding and in a semi-conscious state. He was hospitalised for two days and the laceration to his arm required surgery. His Samsung Galaxy 3 cellphone was stolen during…

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 Arahanga v R

Details

AGLC: Arahanga v R [2014] NZCA 379
Case: [2014] NZCA 379
Decision Date: 8 August 2014 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the appellant, Wiremu Arahanga, challenges the sentence imposed by the High Court, arguing it is manifestly excessive. The appellant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for charges including wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, aggravated robbery, burglary and two counts of aggravated assault. The appellant’s argument is that the sentence imposed was excessive because the starting point was too high, the levels of culpability between him and his co-offender were not sufficiently differentiated, and insufficient weight was given to his guilty pleas and his youth.

The Court of Appeal considered the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge, and endorsed it as correct in principle and appropriately reflecting the seriousness of the offending. The Court noted that the starting point must reflect all features of the offending absent any personal factors relevant to a particular offender, and that the appellant's age and lesser criminal history may be relevant to an assessment of culpability if they support the conclusion that he played a lesser role in the offending relative to his older co-offender. However, the evidence at trial strongly suggested that the appellant was a full participant in the serious attack on the second victim and that he and his co-offender were correctly charged as joint principal offenders.

The Court of Appeal found that the six month reduction to reflect both the appellant’s guilty pleas and his youth was not inadequate. While the discounts should have been separately articulated, the overall discount of around six per cent – or six months – reflects a greater allowance for the guilty pleas than might otherwise have been made, and the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders