Harema-Watts v The Queen - [2017] NZCA 306

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA664/2016
[2017] NZCA 306

BETWEEN	RIDGE HAREMA-WATTS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	27 June 2017
Court:	Miller, Lang and Mander JJ
Counsel:	M N Pecotic for Appellant E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	18 July 2017 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
BThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Lang J)

Ms Harema-Watts was found guilty by a jury on charges of kidnapping and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. She had earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure.

On 20 November 2016, Judge D J Sharp sentenced Ms Harema-Watts to an effective term of two years three months imprisonment on all charges.[1] Ms Harema-Watts appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge adopted a starting point that was too high and failed to give Ms Harema-Watts credit for the fact that she paid reparation in the sum of $1,000 to one of her victims. Prior to the hearing Ms Harema-Watts indicated that her appeal against conviction was no longer being pursued, and her counsel confirmed this at the hearing. We thus treat it as having been abandoned.

Background

[1]R v Harema-Watts [2016] NZDC 24067.

The charges of kidnapping and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm were laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the afternoon of 14 July 2015. On that date Ms Harema-Watts arranged for the victim, whom she had known for approximately two years, to come to the address at which she was then living with her parents. In an earlier text message exchange she had told him her grandmother had died, and she accepted his offer to accompany her to buy flowers for her grandmother’s funeral. When the victim arrived at Ms Harema-Watts’ address, she gave him a coffee. The victim then waited on a couch in the lounge for Ms Harema-Watts to get changed before going out.
At that point at least two persons, neither of whom was known to the victim, entered the lounge and confronted the victim. They were dressed in Swandri jackets and their faces were obscured. The victim said that as soon as the men entered the room one of them struck him on the back of the head with what he believed to be the butt of a firearm. The men asked the victim for money, and then began punching and kicking him. These blows knocked the victim to the ground, where he was punched and kicked several times. He was then wrapped in a blanket that covered his head, and his hands and legs were tied. A short time later he was placed in the rear seat of his own vehicle.

The vehicle then left the address with the victim still tied up and wrapped in the blanket on the back seat. The victim said he believed Ms Harema-Watts was the driver 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 Harema-Watts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Harema-Watts v The Queen [2017] NZCA 306
Case: [2017] NZCA 306
Decision Date: 18 July 2017 at 2.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Harema-Watts appealed against her conviction and sentence following a finding of guilt for charges of kidnapping, injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and assault with intent to injure. The lower court had sentenced her to an effective term of two years and three months imprisonment. The appeal against conviction was no longer being pursued, but the appeal against sentence argued that the starting point was too high and that the court had failed to give her credit for paying $1,000 in reparation to one of the victims.

The court had to decide whether the starting point was too high and whether the court had erred in not applying a discount for the reparation payment. The court assessed the seriousness of the offending by comparing it to the offending in Tozer v R, which involved an offender who assaulted the victim with a wooden baton and kidnapped him. The court also had to decide whether the reparation payment warranted a discount.

The court found that Ms Harema-Watts' role in the offending was central, and her culpability was broadly similar to the offender in Tozer v R. The court held that the starting point was appropriate, and the omission to give her credit for the reparation payment did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. The court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence.

This case highlights the importance of considering the offender's role in the offending and the seriousness of the offending when determining the appropriate sentence. It also shows that the court will consider the factors that mitigate the offending, such as the payment of reparation, when determining the appropriate sentence. However, the court will not necessarily apply a discount for every mitigating factor, and the overall sentence must still reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Orders