Heketa v Police - [2018] NZHC 2204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-441-18

[2018] NZHC 2204

IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to s 229 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

RYAN JOHN HEKETA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 August 2018

Appearances:

E R Bruce for the Appellant C R Stuart for the Respondent

Judgment:

24 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Conviction and Sentence Appeal)

[1] Mr Heketa was convicted of male assaults female1 and wilful damage2 on 10 May 2018 after a Judge-alone trial before Judge Adeane in the District Court at Napier.3 Mr Heketa was sentenced to nine months’ supervision by Judge Adeane later that day.4

[2] Mr Heketa appeals his sentence (and conviction) on the basis that he should have been granted a discharge without conviction. Mr Heketa does not claim that Judge Adeane erred in reaching the conclusions he did in the Judge-alone trial. Fresh affidavit evidence is tendered in support of the appeal

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Police v Heketa [2018] NZDC 12260.
4      Police v Heketa [2018] NZDC 16247.

HEKETA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2204 [24 August 2018]

[3] The Crown does not oppose the admission of the fresh evidence, but opposes the appeal on the basis that discharge without conviction is not appropriate in this case.

Factual background

[4] Mr Heketa and Ms Bell are married, but have been separated since October 2017. In February 2018, they came to an arrangement for Mr Heketa to go to Ms Bell’s home and look after their four-month old daughter while she attended an appointment. When Mr Heketa arrived, and argument developed over a cell phone that Mr Heketa had purchased for Ms Bell because Ms Bell was now using that phone to contact other people. Mr Heketa grabbed the phone and smashed it in front of Ms Bell and her five- year-old son, who is not a child of Mr Heketa.

[5] Mr Heketa then attempted to leave the house with his infant daughter. It was common ground at the hearing, that there had been no prior arrangement for Mr Heketa to take the daughter away from the house. Mr Heketa took the infant to Ms Bell’s vehicle and placed her in a child car seat. He then removed the child car seat, and took it over to his vehicle. While this was going on, Ms Bell was attempting to regain physical possession of the infant. Mr Heketa repeatedly pushed her away to prevent this from occurring.

[6] Finally, Mr Heketa grabbed her by the hair and dragged her head down. He then pushed her by the neck against a corrugated iron fence that was next to the car. She screamed and demanded to be let go, which Mr Heketa eventually did. Ms Bell then persisted in her attempts to take the…

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 Heketa v Police

Details

AGLC: Heketa v Police [2018] NZHC 2204
Case: [2018] NZHC 2204
Decision Date: 24 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ryan John Heketa appeals his conviction and sentence for male assaults female and wilful damage, which were handed down by Judge Adeane in the District Court at Napier on 10 May 2018. Heketa was sentenced to nine months' supervision. He argues that he should have been granted a discharge without conviction. The Crown does not oppose the admission of fresh evidence but opposes the appeal on the basis that a discharge without conviction is not appropriate. The appeal court found that the offending involved domestic violence of a serious nature, including violence in the presence of children, which is a significant aggravating factor. The appellant has shown remorse and engaged in rehabilitative measures, but his personal circumstances only partially mitigate the seriousness of his offending. The consequences of a conviction are likely to make it more difficult for the appellant to work as a professional mixed-martial arts practitioner and personal trainer, but the court does not consider these consequences to be out of proportion with the gravity of the offending. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders