Legal Research
Cases
Hemopo v R

Hemopo v R

Case [2016] NZCA 242 2 June 2016

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA569/2015
[2016] NZCA 242

BETWEEN	KEPA WIREMU HEMOPO Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	9 May 2016
Court:	Harrison, Simon France and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	I A Jayanandan for Appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	2 June 2016 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

Introduction

Following a seven-day trial before Judge Down and a jury in the Auckland District Court between 15 and 23 June 2015, the appellant, Mr Kepa Hemopo, was found guilty of one charge of aggravated robbery. On 2 September 2015 he was convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Mr Hemopo originally appealed against both conviction and sentence, but in her written submissions filed in court his counsel advised the Court that he no longer wished to pursue his appeal against conviction and abandoned that aspect of his appeal. Mr Hemopo’s appeal therefore proceeded just as an appeal against sentence.

Background

The following account is taken from the Crown summary of the evidence at trial. On 28 October 2013 the two victims, a 24-year-old man and his pregnant partner, were at their home address in Papakura. Mr Hemopo and his brother, with concealed faces, arrived at the address and knocked on the door. The male victim opened the door and was confronted by the two men who demanded drugs. The male victim attempted to close the door, but Mr Hemopo and his brother forced their way inside.
Having pushed past the male victim, Mr Hemopo noted that the female victim was attempting to call the police on her mobile phone. He therefore forcibly took the mobile phone off her. At this stage the male victim pushed Mr Hemopo’s brother to the ground. It was then that an unidentified third man entered their house, went to the kitchen and pulled a large knife from the kitchen block, threatening the victims with it. On seeing the third man with the knife, the male victim stopped resisting, raised his hands above his head and asked the men what they wanted.
Mr Hemopo’s brother walked over to the male victim and punched him in the side of the head, then put him in headlock and continued to punch him. The three men then forced the victims to sit on a couch. The man with the knife gave the male victim what he described as “a little shunt in the back with it”. He said the tip of the blade touched him. The male victim, fearing for the safety of him and his partner, told the men to take what they wanted, but said that there were no drugs or money in the house.
The three men began to ransack the house in search of drugs. After they established that there were no drugs or money in the house, the men gathered up the victim’s electronic goods, which included a PlayStation, televisions, mobile phones and laptop computers and…

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 Hemopo v R

Details

AGLC: Hemopo v R [2016] NZCA 242
Case: [2016] NZCA 242
Decision Date: 2 June 2016 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kepa Wiremu Hemopo was convicted in the Auckland District Court of one charge of aggravated robbery. He appealed against his sentence of eight years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Crown had alleged that the appellant and his brother, with their faces concealed, arrived at the victims' home and demanded drugs. The male victim attempted to close the door but the appellant and his brother forced their way inside. The appellant took the victim's mobile phone from his partner. The male victim then pushed the appellant's brother to the ground. An unidentified man then entered the home, produced a large knife and threatened the victims. The appellant's brother punched the male victim and placed him in a headlock. The three men then ransacked the home, stole the victims' electronic goods and drove off in the male victim's car with the stolen items. The appellant took a cricket bat and threatened the male victim with it. The victims were told that they could buy their property back for $200 before the men left the home. The appellant's counsel submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive for three reasons. Firstly, that the District Court judge adopted a starting point which was too high. Secondly, the District Court judge did not give sufficient discount for the appellant's youth and prospects of rehabilitation as well as his time spent on electronically-monitored bail. Finally, the District Court judge did not apply the least restrictive outcome principle when determining the length of the final sentence of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders