Hepi v The King - [2024] NZHC 3098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000078

[2024] NZHC 3098

BETWEEN TE WIKAITARA HEPI (aka HARE TE TITAHA)
Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 21 October 2024 (by VMR)

Appearances:

Appellant in Person

C Megala for Respondent

Judgment:

24 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Sentence appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 October 2024 at 12.00 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei Copy to: Appellant

HEPI v R [2024] NZHC 3098 [24 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 16 July 2024, in the District Court at Kaikohe, Te Wikaitara Hepi pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful possession of an air rifle and one charge of presenting the air rifle. Judge G R Tomlinson convicted and discharged him on the charge of possession of the air rifle (and ordered its destruction), and on the charge of presenting the air rifle, convicted Mr Hepi and ordered him to undertake 40 hours’ community work and six months’ supervision.1

[2] Mr Hepi appeals the conviction. He wants to revisit his decision to plead guilty to the charges and to defend them.

Background

[3] The summary of facts Mr Hepi pleaded guilty to records that he lives in a cabin on a property at Ōheaewai, Northland. The paddocks surrounding his property are leased by the victim’s employer, who grazes stock on them. At about 5.30 pm on 2 July 2024, the victim was moving stock on behalf of his employer through the paddocks where Mr Hepi lives. At the time the victim was accompanied by his partner and four year old son. There was a confrontation between Mr Hepi and the victim. The argument escalated between Mr Hepi and the victim. Mr Hepi went into his cabin and approximately 30 seconds later returned holding a black air gun. The victim and his family believed the air gun was a firearm. The summary records Mr Hepi was clearly seen aiming the air gun at the victim and his family and as a result the victim’s partner called the Police.

[4] Members of the Armed Offenders Squad attended and arrested Mr Hepi. During the search of his property the Police located the black air gun inside his cabin. Mr Hepi admitted possession of the air gun. The summary records he admitted pointing it in the direction of the victim and his family.

1 New Zealand Police v Hepi [2024] NZDC 18951.

The appeal

[5] Mr Hepi represents himself. In support of his appeal, he has filed a memorandum and an affidavit of complaint which I understand he intends to file (or has filed) with the Māori Land Court at Whangārei to support his application for an injunction against the victim’s employer in relation to the leased property. Mr Hepi has also provided a copy of the Ahu Whenua Trust Order made in the Māori Land Court. In his memorandum Mr Hepi seeks to make the point that on…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Hepi v The King [2024] NZHC 3098
Case: [2024] NZHC 3098
Decision Date: 24 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Hepi v The King involves Te Wikaitara Hepi, who pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an air rifle and presenting it towards another individual. Hepi now appeals against his conviction, arguing he entered his guilty plea under duress and did not have proper time to consider his options. The court was required to determine whether the appeal against conviction should be allowed, focusing on whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court considered the legal framework for appeals against conviction, including the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and relevant case law.

The court examined whether Hepi's plea was coerced or made under duress, noting that he had legal representation and time to discuss his options before pleading guilty. The court concluded Hepi made an informed decision, understanding the consequences of his plea. It also considered whether Hepi had a valid defence of self-defence, finding that even if such a defence were arguable, it did not establish a miscarriage of justice because Hepi had been properly advised and chose to plead guilty. The court found that Hepi’s actions constituted presenting the firearm, regardless of whether it was directly aimed at the victims.

Based on its findings, the court dismissed the appeal. The appeal against conviction was deemed not to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as Hepi had made a conscious and informed decision to plead guilty. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting an appeal against conviction following a guilty plea.

Orders