Haimona v R - [2011] NZCA 375

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA895/2010
[2011] NZCA 375

BETWEEN RENATA MICHAEL HAIMONA
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

CA90/2011

AND BETWEEN JOSEPH PINI PAUL
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 5 July 2011

Court: Glazebrook, Rodney Hansen and MacKenzie JJ

Counsel: R Vigor-Brown and L Te Kani for Haimona
C J Tennet for Paul
J M Jelas for Respondent

Judgment: 9 August 2011 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Mr Haimona’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

B Both appeals against sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by MacKenzie J)

Introduction

Mr Haimona was convicted at trial before Judge Rollo and a jury in August 2010 on a count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and discharged on a further count of wounding with intent to injure. Mr Paul pleaded guilty at the close of the Crown case to both counts. A third accused was discharged on the count of wounding with intent to injure and acquitted on the count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Mr Haimona was sentenced to eight years and six months imprisonment, and Mr Paul to eight years and nine months imprisonment, with minimum periods of imprisonment of four years in each case.[1] Mr Haimona appeals against his conviction and sentence. Mr Paul appeals against sentence.

Facts

[1] R v Haimona DC Tauranga CRI-2009-270-100, 1 December 2010.

On the evening of 20 December 2008, the two victims, young men both aged 18, were attending a dance social at the Bethlehem Community Hall. They were outside the hall when a vehicle with four males and two females stopped. One of the occupants of the vehicle began swearing at the two young men and challenged them to a fight. They attacked the two victims. We deal later with the details of what occurred. One of the victims, Mr Brownlie‑Blackburn, was very seriously injured. He underwent a CT scan which confirmed fractures to his skull as well as haemorrhaging to both sides of his brain. The injuries were critical and life threatening and he was flown by helicopter to Waikato Hospital for further treatment. He was in a coma for an extended period and an assessment indicated that he would require an extended period of rehabilitation, possibly as long as 18 to 24 months, to relearn basic skills such as walking and eating. The second victim, Mr Heagren, was not seriously injured and was able to summon help from inside the community hall. When he returned outside he saw the offenders climb back into the vehicle and drive off at speed.

Mr Haimona’s conviction appeal

Mr Haimona was convicted on count one, wounding Mr Brownlie‑Blackburn with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He was discharged pursuant to s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961 on count two, wounding Mr Heagren with intent to injure. He raises three issues in relation to that conviction:
(a)That the Court should have amended the indictment to include an alternative…

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 Haimona v R

Details

AGLC: Haimona v R [2011] NZCA 375
Case: [2011] NZCA 375
Decision Date: 9 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Haimona v R, the appellants, Renata Michael Haimona and Joseph Pini Paul, appealed against their convictions and sentences for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent to injure. The victims, two young men, were attacked outside a dance social by a group of four males and two females. One of the victims suffered critical and life-threatening injuries, while the other was not seriously injured. Haimona was convicted on count one, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and discharged on count two, wounding with intent to injure. Paul pleaded guilty to both counts. Both appellants were sentenced to eight years and six months and eight years and nine months imprisonment, respectively, with minimum periods of imprisonment of four years in each case. The court dismissed both appeals against conviction and sentence. The court found that the trial judge's decision not to amend the indictment to include an alternative but lesser count of assault was correct. The court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury focused them on the relevant issues and directed them to return a not guilty verdict if any of the questions posed in the question trail were answered negatively. Regarding the sentence appeal, the court considered that the judge was correct to adopt the same starting point for both offenders and view them as having approximately equal culpability for the offending. The court found that the nine-year starting point for count one was appropriate and that the injuries to the victim were horrendous, with lifelong consequences. The court also found that the uplift of one year for the count of injuring with intent to injure was within the available range, and the discount allowed to Paul for his late guilty pleas and belated remorse was not ungenerous.

Orders