Hetaraka v The King - [2024] NZHC 651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-54

[2024] NZHC 651

BETWEEN
LENA RINGATU HETARAKA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 11 March 2024

Counsel:

J Yi for Appellant

H Bell for Respondent

Judgment:

22 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 March 2024 at 4:00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
J Yi, Barrister, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

HETARAKA v R [2024] NZHC 651 [22 March 2024]

The appeal

[1] Ms Lena Ringatu Hetaraka appeals her sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment (with leave granted to apply for home detention) imposed by Judge B A Gibson on 16 January 2024 at the Auckland District Court.1

[2]The sentencing followed her guilty pleas to two charges:

(a)assault with intent to rob;2 and

(b)common assault.3

Grounds of appeal

[3] Mr Yi for Ms Hetaraka advances three grounds of appeal on the basis that there were errors in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should have been imposed because:

(a)the starting point for the lead charge, assault with intent to rob, of 12 months’ imprisonment was too high;

(b)the Judge gave insufficient or no weight to the defendant’s personal circumstances and her efforts at rehabilitation; and

(c)a sentence of community detention or of community work and intensive supervision should have been imposed.

The Crown submits that the sentence should be left undisturbed and is perfectly justified.

1      R v Hetaraka [2024] NZDC 2840.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 236(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 196; maximum penalty one year imprisonment.

The facts

[4] The charges arose out of two incidents, both occurring in the middle of the day in Central Auckland.

[5] At about 2:00 pm on 10 December 2022, the victim was walking with his partner and a female friend along Queen Street. Ms Hetaraka approached the victim’s female friend and unsuccessfully attempted to grab her handbag. Ms Hetaraka then began yelling and swearing at the group before running towards them in an aggressive manner. This time, Ms Hetaraka grabbed the male victim’s bag. He turned to face Ms Hetaraka and without hesitation punched her in the face. Using both hands, he then pushed Ms Hetaraka away. Ms Hetaraka did not obtain this victim’s bag either.

[6] A companion of Ms Hetaraka, Mr Falwasser, then approached the victim and hit him on the head with a hammer causing a wound that immediately started bleeding. The victim felt dizzy and fell to the ground. Ms Hetaraka and Mr Falwasser then disappeared.

[7] The second incident occurred a short time later at a sushi shop on Elliot Street. Ms Hetaraka picked up a package of sushi and attempted to leave without paying for it but was stopped by the store security guard. Her companion, Mr Falwasser, handed to Ms Hetaraka the same hammer he had used earlier. Mr Falwasser tried (but failed) to punch the security guard. Ms Hetaraka then…

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 Hetaraka v The King

Details

AGLC: Hetaraka v The King [2024] NZHC 651
Case: [2024] NZHC 651
Decision Date: 22 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lena Ringatu Hetaraka appeals her 14-month imprisonment sentence, imposed by Judge B A Gibson on 16 January 2024 at the Auckland District Court. Ms Hetaraka pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob and common assault. The appeal focuses on three grounds: the starting point for the lead charge was too high, insufficient weight was given to personal circumstances and rehabilitation efforts, and a community-based sentence should have been imposed. The Crown argues the sentence was justified.

The key issues were whether the starting point for the lead charge was correctly set at 12 months, whether the Judge adequately considered Ms Hetaraka’s personal circumstances, and whether a community-based sentence was more appropriate. The High Court found the starting point should have been 10 months, not 12 months, as the Judge erred in considering the hammer attack by the co-offender. The Court also found the Judge should have applied a 10 per cent discount for Ms Hetaraka’s personal circumstances, particularly the traumatic death of her daughter. However, the Court upheld the Judge’s conclusion that imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence in these circumstances.

The appeal was allowed. Ms Hetaraka’s sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment was quashed. She is now sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for the assault with intent to rob charge, and three months’ imprisonment for the common assault charge, both sentences being concurrent. Leave to apply for home detention is preserved.

Orders