Legal Research
Cases
Harris v R

Harris v R

Case [2023] NZCA 462 21 September 2023

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA305/2023
[2023] NZCA 462

BETWEEN	KAMERA JACOB TAMATI HARRIS Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	30 August 2023
Court:	Miller, Ellis and van Bohemen JJ
Counsel:	C S Cull KC for Appellant FRJ Sinclair for Respondent
Judgment:	21 September 2023 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.
BThe appeal against refusal of name suppression is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Kamera Harris appeals his sentence of five years and 10 months’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of Michael Biggins,[1] and the refusal of permanent name suppression.[2]

The facts

[1]Crimes Act, ss 171, 160(2)(a) and 177.

[2]R v Harris [2023] NZHC 1210 [sentencing notes] at [67] and [64].

The facts as found by Campbell J at sentencing were not in dispute before us. We adopt his account, which is drawn from the agreed summary of facts:[3]
[3]Sentencing notes, above n 2.
Background
[9]       On 26 September 2021, a friend of yours introduced you to Mr Biggins' wife. Your friend and Mrs Biggins had met some weeks before, when she offered him a ride to Kerikeri; she said she would drive him anytime he was going to Kerikeri. She quite clearly shared the same generosity of spirit as her husband. On the 26^th of September, Mrs Biggins agreed to drive you and your friend to Kerikeri and took you to several locations before taking you back to [Ōkaihau].
[10]     On 27 September 2021, you and another friend – your co-defendant – decided you wanted to steal a car and then go to see some friends in [Kaitaia]. The two of you planned to ask Mrs Biggins for a ride, push her out of the car and take it. You were 15 at the time. Your friend was 12.
[11]     You selected a black-handled knife from the kitchen where you were, and said you were going to use the knife for the carjacking. Mr Mansfield KC tells me that you always carried a knife because you thought it made you seem more intimidating. He accepts that that does not diminish your responsibility for what happened.
[12]     After selecting the knife, you and your friend then waited until it got dark. You went to Mrs Biggins’ home at about 7.45 pm and asked Mrs Biggins if she would drive you to your aunt's house on Lake Road. Mrs Biggins declined as she had drunk a glass of wine. Mrs Biggins asked her husband, Mr Biggins, to give the two of you a ride. He agreed to do so. Shortly after, you and your friend left the house with Mr Biggins.
The incident
[13]     At about 8.20 pm, residents on Imms Road heard a loud bang. Mr Biggins’ car had collided with a tree on the side of the road, 200 metres from the intersection with Lake Road.
[14]     Mr Biggins was found unresponsive inside the car, with…

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 Harris v R

Details

AGLC: Harris v R [2023] NZCA 462
Case: [2023] NZCA 462
Decision Date: 21 September 2023 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Kamera Jacob Tamati Harris appeals both his sentence and the refusal of permanent name suppression. Harris was convicted of the manslaughter of Michael Biggins. The appeal against his sentence and the refusal of name suppression was dismissed. The court held that the sentence of five years and 10 months' imprisonment was appropriate, given the serious aggravating factors and the mitigating factors of Harris' youth and potential for rehabilitation. The court also found that Harris could not demonstrate that publication of his name would cause him extreme hardship, and thus, the refusal of permanent name suppression was upheld. The court considered the arguments from both sides but ultimately found no basis to interfere with the original sentencing and suppression decisions.

Orders