Heta v The King
[2025] NZCA 425
•25 August 2025 at 10.30 am
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA
CA134/2025
[2025] NZCA 425
BETWEEN RAYMOND HETA Appellant AND THE KING Respondent
| Hearing: | 30 July 2025 |
| Court: | French P, Jagose and Gault JJ |
| Counsel: | G A Walsh and M J James for Appellant |
| A L McConachy and S-A A Stratford for Respondent | |
| Judgment: | 25 August 2025 at 10.30 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Jagose J)
Raymond Heta appeals against his sentence of seven years and three months’
imprisonment imposed by Judge G C Hollister-Jones in the District Court at Rotorua
on 28 February 2025.[1] Mr Heta was sentenced following his guilty pleas to charges of aggravated robbery,[2] and unlawfully taking a vehicle,[3] both entered on conclusion
of the victim’s evidence in chief at trial.
Background
[1] R v Heta [2025] NZDC 4455 [judgment under appeal].
[2] Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b).
[3] Section 226(1)(a).
Mr Heta was 38 years old at the time of the offending. He has an extensive
and relatively persistent criminal history from the age of 14 years—featuring violence,
dishonesty, road transport and non-compliance offending—for which he received
multiple imprisonment sentences.
In the afternoon of Saturday, 28 May 2022, a group of five men including
Mr Heta, all disguised and some wearing gang patches, assaulted the victim at his
Rotorua address. After being told the person they sought at the address was in prison,
Mr Heta asked “well what have you got?”. They punched and kicked the victim and,
on the victim’s attempt to fend them off and flee, stabbed him to the top of his head
and in his back, causing him to fall to the ground with a T10 spinal cord injury,
rendering him permanently paraplegic with lifelong detrimental consequences. The
group took the victim’s bag, containing his wallet and cellphone. Mr Heta later was
seen driving a vehicle the group also took from the address.
A co-offender, the other members of the group not being identified, was
sentenced following his guilty plea to five years’ imprisonment. The Judge had
adopted a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment and applied guilty plea and
causatively contributory background discounts of 25 and 15 per cent, respectively.[4]
Judgment under appeal
[4] R v Herbert [2023] NZDC 8812 at [51]–[52].
The Judge assessed the combination of aggravating factors justified an
eight-year starting point for Mr Heta’s aggravated robbery offending, both in terms of
this Court’s guideline judgment in R v Mako,[5] and for parity with that adopted in
sentencing of the co-offender.[6] The Judge reduced that starting point by three months to reflect the need for totality given Mr Heta’s nine-month period of imprisonment for
other offending.[7] The Judge also applied a six-month uplift for Mr Heta’s criminal
history and a further two-month uplift for his offending on bail.[8]
[5] R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA) at [58].
[6] Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [11].
[7] At [12].
[8] At [13].
Although the Judge rejected the submission that Mr Heta’s reported alcohol
and drug addiction had any causative contribution to his offending, he did accept that
such a contribution had been made by his deprived background, leading to gang
involvement.[9] The Judge also expressly acknowledged that Mr Heta’s “very difficult
background” had ongoing effect on him, but assessed his age and his “entrenched”
offending pattern limited any discount for background matters to 15 per cent.[10]
[9] At [14].
[10] At [15].
The Judge accordingly sentenced Mr Heta to seven years and three months’
imprisonment for the aggravated robbery, concurrently with one year’s imprisonment
for unlawfully taking the vehicle.[11]
Submissions on appeal
[11] At [16].
For Mr Heta, Mr Walsh and Ms James submit Mr Heta’s sentence was
manifestly excessive because the Judge gave insufficient credit for Mr Heta’s
background, which had made a causative contribution to his offending.[12] Mr Heta is
said to have experienced severe deprivation and disadvantage from a young age,
particularly following the death of his whāngai mother and when placed in foster care.
His consequent disconnection from whānau, and meeting other youths in care from
gang backgrounds, led to him joining a gang at 15 or 16 years of age. Specifically,
Ms James argues the Judge was wrong to limit the discount for Mr Heta’s deprivation,
given the “magnifying effect” of his gang involvement.[13] In her submission, this is
not a case where background can have little or no impact on sentence. She relies on the “parallels” of this Court’s decision in Poi v R to advocate for the same 20 or
25 per cent discount.[14]
[12] Mr Heta’s other notified grounds of appeal were abandoned.
[13] Relying on Carr v R [2020] NZCA 357 at [60]; citing Rakuraku v R [2014] NZHC 3270
[14] Poi v R [2020] NZCA 312.
For the Crown, in supporting the Judge’s sentence, Ms McConachy argues that
Poi v R is distinguishable. She contends the offenders in Poi v R only had low-level
prior convictions and had made genuine attempts at rehabilitation. In contrast, the
absence of both of those factors in Mr Heta’s case justifies a “tempered” discount.
Approach on appeal
We must allow Mr Heta’s appeal only if satisfied there is both an error in the
sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.[15] In any other case, we must
dismiss the appeal.[16] The measure of error is that the sentence must be “manifestly
excessive”, a principle “well-engrained” in the approach to sentencing appeals.[17] We
will not intervene where the sentence is within a range properly justified by accepted
sentencing principle.[18] Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive is to be assessed
in terms of the sentence given; the process by which it is reached rarely will be
decisive.[19]
Discussion
[15] Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
[16] Section 250(3).
[17] Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [33] and [35].
[18] At [36].
[19] Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].
An offender’s background is relevant to sentencing if it indicates reduced
agency on the part of the offender in engaging in the offending, but:[20]
[T]he more serious and carefully orchestrated the offending, the more the
courts are likely to emphasise the choice made by the offender to offend. The
causative contribution of background factors will be reduced and other
sentencing purposes will be more prominent …
[20] Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [16(c)].
We agree with the Judge that Mr Heta’s background indicated such reduced
agency on his part and provided a rational explanation for his initial participation in
group offending. We note the clear information before the Judge identifying Mr Heta’s long-term gang socialisation. But Mr Heta’s background does not explain his
continued participation in violent offending into his middle years. Any discount on
the basis of Mr Heta’s background accordingly must be constrained.[21] Given his
relatively continuous violent offending, other sentencing purposes such as holding him
accountable for the harm he has done and protecting the community must then take
precedence.[22]
[21] See, for example, Harris v R [2025] NZCA 292 at [63]–[64]; and Stewart v R [2025] NZCA 290
[22] Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(a) and (g).
We apprehend Ms James’s real focus is on some additional discount in
recognition of Mr Heta’s rehabilitative prospects. That was the additional factor in
Poi v R which led to one of the offenders (a Mr Wilson) being given a 20 per cent
discount for his “rehabilitative prospects and the concrete steps that he is taking …
with the aim of building a more constructive life moving forward”.[23] But there is no
evidence beyond aspiration that Mr Heta’s “engage[ment] in therapy to learn how to
cope with his triggers” will have that result. Furthermore, Mr Wilson’s index
offending was seen as “somewhat of an aberration” from his largely low-level prior
offending,[24] which cannot be said of Mr Heta.
[23] Poi v R, above n 14, at [39]. The 25 per cent discount afforded Mr Wilson’s co-offender, the
[24] At [38].
The Judge’s sentence was not manifestly excessive.
| Result | |
| [15] | The appeal is dismissed. |
| Solicitors: |
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua for Respondent
HETA v R [2025] NZCA 425 [25 August 2025]
at [56]–[58].
at [23]–[25].
eponymous Mr Poi, was on grounds of his reduced moral culpability (by reason of his diminished
intellectual capacity and deprived background), significantly reduced criminal offending and
willingness to engage in rehabilitative efforts: at [49]–[51].
0
0
0