Cadralala v The King - [2024] NZHC 1857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-232

[2024] NZHC 1857

BETWEEN
MAIKA CADRALALA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 8 July 2024

Appearances:

MGH Jenkins for appellant M S Chiraagh for respondent

Date of judgment:

9 July 2024

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This reasons for judgment was delivered by me on 9 July 2024 at 3.00pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
Joanne Wickliffe, Barrister, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

CADRALALA v R [2024] NZHC 1857 [9 July 2024]

[1] Maika Cadralala appeals the 21 May 2024 decision of Judge A M Fitzgibbon in the District Court at North Shore,1 sentencing him to eight months’ home detention on his guilty pleas to charges of wounding and injuring, both with intent to injure.2 The victim is his wife. At its hearing yesterday, I dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow. These are those.

Background

[2] Mr Cadralala is 43 years old. He has no criminal or bail history. His guilty pleas came with his acceptance of Judge Fitzgibbon’s sentence indication of a two years and 10 months’ starting point.3 The Judge’s indication was on the basis of facts she summarised in the following terms:4

You and [the complainant] were married and lived together with your three year old and six year old children. On Saturday 29 July [2023] you confronted her about an alleged affair that you thought she was having. You became angry during this time and struck her about the head and these strikes caused injury to her. The next morning you again confronted her about having an affair and this time you became more angry and used your closed fists to punch her on the side of the face. She tried to defend herself by putting her forearms up and you became annoyed about that, or upset about that and grabbed a wooden broom handle and used that to strike her hand. She moved her hands away from her head and then you hit her across the back of the head which caused an open wound and she was bleeding and suffered injuries as a result of that to her face, breast, hand and cuts to her neck and hand. When you were asked for an explanation you said you assaulted her because you were enraged that she had had an extramarital affair.

Judgment under appeal

[3] For sentencing,5 from her indication’s 34-month starting point, the Judge applied discounts of 45 per cent — comprising 25 per cent for Mr Cadralala’s guilty pleas; 10 per cent for his rehabilitation and remorse; five per cent for his previous good character; and five per cent also for his compliance with restrictive bail conditions — resulting in an 18-month sentence of imprisonment, which the Judge converted to

1      R v Cadralala [2024] NZDC 11874.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment; and s 189, maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Cadralala CRI-2023-044-2521, 16 January…

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 Cadralala v The King

Details

AGLC: Cadralala v The King [2024] NZHC 1857
Case: [2024] NZHC 1857
Decision Date: 9 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maika Cadralala appeals against his sentencing by Judge A M Fitzgibbon in the District Court at North Shore, where he was sentenced to eight months' home detention for charges of wounding and injuring his wife with intent. The appeal was dismissed by Jagose J on 9 July 2024. The key legal issues were whether the sentencing judge erred in combining and diminishing the discount for Cadralala's remorse and rehabilitation, and whether the sentence of home detention was manifestly excessive. Cadralala's counsel argued for a lower discount for remorse and rehabilitation and contended that a sentence of supervision was more appropriate.

The court considered the arguments regarding the discount for remorse and rehabilitation, noting that such discounts should be based on tangible evidence, such as engagement in restorative justice processes. The court held that disaggregating remorse and rehabilitation into separate discounts was inappropriate, as rehabilitation could also evidence remorse. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately assessed the mitigating factors and had applied a discount of 20 per cent for these factors, which was within the usual range of five to 15 per cent. The court also found that the sentence of eight months' home detention was not manifestly excessive, as it appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offending and the need for deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders