Legal Research
Cases
Haeata v Police

Haeata v Police

Case [2019] NZHC 3268 11 December 2019

Sentencing

Aggravating Factors

Premeditation

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-096-2539

[2019] NZHC 3268

IN THE MATTER of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

RENEE CHAZ HAEATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 December 2019

Appearances:

R J Bayer for the Appellant N I Burt for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] On 6 November 2019 Mr Haeata was sentenced by Judge Tompkins in the District Court at Hutt Valley to 18 months’ imprisonment for one charge of assault with intent to injure following the entry of a guilty plea.1 The sentence was to be served cumulatively with an existing term of imprisonment of seven years for sexual offending.

[2] Mr Haeata appeals his sentence on the grounds the starting point adopted by the District Court Judge was too high and that the end sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown acknowledges the starting point adopted by the Judge was at the higher end of the available range, but given the aggravating features of the offending submits the starting point was appropriate.

1 New Zealand Police v Haeta [2019] NZDC 22101, Crimes Act 1961, s 193, maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

HAEATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3268 [11 December 2019]

Factual background

[3] Mr Haeata was serving a sentence at Rimutaka Prison when the incident occurred. At the time of the offending he was only 20 years old. The victim is a Corrections officer.

[4] At approximately 1.30 pm on 6 January 2019 Mr Haeata was on the ground floor of Rimutaka prison. Two Corrections officers were moving property belonging to Mr Haeata’s cellmate from their shared cell to another. Mr Haeata ran upstairs and attempted to prevent the officers from moving the property. The victim intervened and tried to take the property back from the defendant. It is apparent a scuffle ensued. The victim called out for help. Mr Haeata then took out a makeshift weapon from his pocket — a sock with two pool balls placed inside it. He began to swing the sock around aggressively. He advanced towards the victim and forcefully struck the victim on the head with the sock. The officers deployed pepper spray and Mr Haeata was restrained by other Corrections staff.

[5] The victim has explained the impact upon him in a victim impact statement, including the continuing effects the assault have had upon him.

District Court decision

[6] After outlining the facts, the Judge noted the decision was governed by the decision in R v Nuku. He considered the following features of the offending aggravated: that there was an element of premeditation because Mr Haeata chose to arm himself with the makeshift weapon; the attack was to the head, and the attack was on a prison officer in the course of fulfilling their duties. The Judge considered those factors placed the offending in the second band, and adopted a starting point of…

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 Haeata v Police

Details

AGLC: Haeata v Police [2019] NZHC 3268
Case: [2019] NZHC 3268
Decision Date: 11 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haeata v Police was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry. The appellant, Renee Chaz Haeata, appealed his 18-month imprisonment sentence for assault with intent to injure, which was to be served cumulatively with an existing seven-year sentence for sexual offending. The Crown acknowledged that the starting point adopted by the District Court Judge was at the higher end of the available range but submitted that it was appropriate given the aggravating features of the offending. The appellant argued that the starting point was too high and that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue in this case was whether the starting point adopted by the District Court Judge was appropriate and if the end sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court considered the sentencing bands set out in Nuku v R, which provide guidance on the application of R v Taueki to lesser charges where the offending involves an intent to injure. The Court noted that some adjustment to the sentencing bands is necessary to reflect the lower maximum penalty, but a flexible approach is appropriate. The Court concluded that the appellant's offending fell in band two of the bands set out in Nuku, and an 18-month starting point was appropriate. However, taking into account the 25% discount for the guilty plea, and an additional discount for youth of that order, the Court found that a total end sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was appropriate.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was substituted with a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the appellant's existing sentence of imprisonment.

Orders