[1] On 28 June 2022, Mr Hollins-Apiata was sentenced by Judge Grieg in the New Plymouth District Court to two and a half years’ imprisonment,1 for a single charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2 He now appeals this sentence, on the grounds that the starting point taken by the Judge was excessive, and the Judge gave insufficient credit to his youth.

[2] During the hearing, Mr Hannam, for the appellant, was clear that the purpose of the appeal was to achieve a sentence of two years or below so that home detention would be available to the appellant.3 Mr Hannam argued that this would promote goals of rehabilitation and deterrence while avoiding imprisonment, where the

1      R v Hollins-Apiata [2022] NZDC 11967 [Sentencing notes].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 15A; and Parole Act 2002, s 4: any consideration of home detention is restricted to short-term sentences (of two years or less).

HOLLINS-APIATA v R [2022] NZHC 2371 [15 September 2022]

appellant, only 18, would be thrown into the arms of other offenders. He referred to the Community Report recommendations that the appellant would benefit from being free during the day to work while being subject to a long period of oversight to help him make necessary changes.

Background

[3] The offending was the result of a group assault on the victim initiated by the appellant. The victim and the appellant had been attending the same birthday party. A car had arrived at the address and the victim, an off-duty police officer, overheard the appellant and his friends encouraging the driver to perform a skid. The victim then approached the group in an attempt to discourage this from occurring. He informed them that he was a police officer and other officers lived nearby.

[4] A confrontation ensued. The appellant threw a punch which connected with the right-hand side of the victim’s jaw. The victim lost his balance and fell to the ground, where he was set upon by the appellant and other members of the group. The assault came to an end when one of the victim’s friends intervened, by dragging the victim away. Following the assault, the appellant and his friends congratulated each other for ‘hitting a cop’.

[5] The victim suffered a number of injuries as a result of the attack, namely two breaks in his jaw (both requiring facial surgery) and a moderate brain injury with debilitating cognitive effects.4 He could not leave the house for the four months following the attack and was placed on a liquid diet due to his injuries. The victim was unable to work…

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 Hollins-Apiata v The the King

Details

AGLC: Hollins-Apiata v The the King [2022] NZHC 2371
Case: [2022] NZHC 2371
Decision Date: 15 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blake Mack Hollins-Apiata, the appellant, was sentenced in the New Plymouth District Court to two and a half years' imprisonment for a single charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He appeals the sentence, arguing that the starting point was excessive and that the Judge did not give sufficient credit to his youth. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at New Plymouth Registry.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the starting point taken by the Judge was appropriate and whether the discount given for the appellant's youth and lack of previous convictions was adequate. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and the Taueki guidelines in making its decision.

The court found that the Judge did not err in assessing the starting point for the offending. The court accepted that there were multiple attackers, and it was appropriate for the appellant to be sentenced on this basis. The court also found that the discount for the appellant's youth was sufficient, given the severity of the offending and the appellant's history of violent offending from the Youth Court. The court concluded that there was some nexus between the offending and the appellant's background, but it was not the only contributive cause. The court also found that it was open to the Judge to treat the appellant's Youth Court history and his "lack of previous convictions" as neutral factors.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence reached by the Judge was within range and not manifestly excessive.

Orders