Hepi v Police - [2014] NZHC 3180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000286 [2014] NZHC 3180

BETWEEN
BRENDAN LEE HEPI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 November 2014

Appearances:

D Reece for the Appellant
E Meade for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 11 December 2014 at 4.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
D Reece, Barrister, Auckland

BRENDAN LEE HEPI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3180 [11 December 2014]

[1] On 14 April 2014, Brendon Lee Hepi pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of others. On 23 June 2014, he was convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with standard conditions of release that were to apply for six months after the sentence expiry date. In addition, he was ordered to pay $4,000 as emotional harm reparation to the victim.

[2] He now appeals against sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive. On filing his appeal, the District Court Judge granted Mr Hepi bail pending appeal. In doing so, he must have considered that it was in the interests of justice to grant him bail, in terms of s 14 Bail Act 2000.

Background facts

[3] On 28 March 2014, Mr Hepi attended a wedding in Auckland together with his wife. After the wedding, a group of approximately 15 wedding guests went to a bar in Fort Lane, Auckland City to continue the celebration. Among the group of 15 present was Mr Hepi, his wife and the victim. Mr Hepi was drunk.

[4] While at the bar, Mr Hepi and the victim were seated next to each other on a bench seat. Mr Hepi’s wife was sitting on the victim’s knee. When she got off the victim’s knee, he made sexually suggestive gestures to her. Mr Hepi lunged at him with a tall glass, which caused the glass to break. The victim sustained a large “N” shaped cut to his cheek, jaw line and neck which required approximately 30 stitches. Mr Hepi was removed from the bar by security staff and an ambulance was called to attend to the victim.

[5] Mr Hepi attended at the Police Station when he learnt that the Police wished to speak with him. He agreed to be interviewed on DVD. In explanation, he said that he did not mean to cause the injuries, in that he was just intending to throw the ice cubes in the glass at the victim. He was extremely remorseful for his actions.

District Court sentencing

[6] After summarising the facts of the case, the sentencing Judge referred to the victim impact report which described the on-going impact of the assault on him,

apart from the physical injuries he suffered. The victim explained that his life had changed dramatically and the assault had had a very significant emotional impact on him. He was unable to work fulltime, had…

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 Hepi v Police

Details

AGLC: Hepi v Police [2014] NZHC 3180
Case: [2014] NZHC 3180
Decision Date: 11 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Hepi v Police, involved the appellant, Brenden Lee Hepi, appealing the sentence imposed on him by the District Court. Hepi had pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with additional conditions. Hepi argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown conceded that the sentencing Judge erred in relying on Nuku v R to set a starting point for the offending, as the case only applied to offending involving intent to injure. However, the Crown argued that the sentence imposed was not manifestly unjust. The High Court Judge found that the sentencing Judge had erred in relying on Nuku v R and the uplift of six months imprisonment for Hepi’s previous convictions was outside the range available to the sentencing Judge. The Judge determined afresh the appropriate sentence for the offending, considering that there is no tariff for wounding with reckless disregard, and that sentences other than imprisonment are available. The pre-sentence report recommended intensive supervision and community work, and the Judge found that treatment was more likely than imprisonment to be protective of the public in the long term. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and Hepi was sentenced to six months intensive supervision and 200 hours community work, with special conditions imposed in respect of the sentence of intensive supervision.

In conclusion, the High Court of New Zealand found that the sentencing Judge had erred in relying on Nuku v R and the uplift of six months imprisonment for Hepi’s previous convictions was outside the range available to the sentencing Judge. The Judge determined afresh the appropriate sentence for the offending, considering that there is no tariff for wounding with reckless disregard, and that sentences other than imprisonment are available. The pre-sentence report recommended intensive supervision and community work, and the Judge found that treatment was more likely than imprisonment to be protective of the public in the long term. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and Hepi was sentenced to six months intensive supervision and 200 hours community work, with special conditions imposed in respect of the sentence of intensive supervision. The order to pay $4,000 emotional harm reparation to the victim was confirmed.

Orders