Howard v R

Case [2018] NZCA 633


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA189/2018
 [2018] NZCA 633

BETWEEN

KERSHAW NGATAPIRI HOWARD
Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing:

25 October 2018

Court:

Brown, Courtney and Katz JJ

Counsel:

J W Mackey for Appellant
J E L Carruthers for Respondent

Judgment:

21 December 2018 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The appeal is allowed.

BThe appellant’s sentence of 10 years and three months’ imprisonment for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm is quashed and substituted with a sentence of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment, cumulative on the sentence for CRN 16044005935.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

  1. In the early hours of 28 June 2015, there was an incident at an address in the Auckland suburb of Point England in which a young man, Owen Talatau, was shot in the face.  Following a trial before Judge R G Ronayne and a jury, the appellant, Kershaw Howard, was convicted of being party to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and of presenting a firearm.  The Judge imposed a sentence of 10 years and three months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively on a sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery that Mr Howard was already serving.[1]

    [1]R v Howard [2018] NZDC 5820.

  2. Mr Howard appeals the sentence on the basis that the Judge erred by:[2]

    (a)sentencing on an incorrect factual basis;

    (b)taking too high a starting point; and

    (c)failing to consider totality.

The offending

[2]Mr Howard also filed an appeal against conviction, but this was subsequently abandoned.

  1. Mr Howard was 27 years old at the time of the offending.  The principal offender in the assault on Owen Talatau was Mr Howard’s 16-year-old neighbour, Tevita Tukia.

  2. On the night of 27 June 2015, a group had gathered at the Talatau family home to socialise and watch a rugby game.  At some time after midnight, Mr Tukia walked past the address.  There was a scuffle between him and Owen Talatau’s friend, Allen Malau.  Mr Tukia was drunk.  Other people present told him to go home, which he did.

  3. Some hours later, a neighbour of Tevita Tukia and Mr Howard saw Mr Tukia go to Mr Howard’s house and Mr Howard give Mr Tukia a rifle.  The two then drove off in Mr Howard’s white Mercedes.  At about 3 am, Owen Talatau saw Mr Tukia return to the Talatau property in the vehicle.  There seemed to be other people in the vehicle but only Tevita Tukia got out.  He was holding a metal object (possibly a machete) and stood outside the house hitting the front fence and screaming and cursing.  Eventually he got back into the vehicle and it drove away.

  4. At about 3.30 am, the white Mercedes returned to the Talatau property.  There were at least three people in it, including Mr Howard, Mr Tukia and Mr Tukia’s father.  Those still present at the Talatau’s address included Owen Talatau and his…

Continue reading Howard v R

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Howard v R [2018] NZCA 633
Case
[2018] NZCA 633
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Howard v R, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against sentence brought by Kershaw Howard, who was convicted of being party to causing grievous bodily harm with intent and of presenting a firearm. Howard was sentenced to 10 years and three months’ imprisonment for the offending. The appeal was against the sentence on the grounds that the Judge erred by sentencing on an incorrect factual basis, taking too high a starting point, and failing to consider totality. The Court found that although the Judge had not erred in sentencing on the basis that Howard handed the gun to the principal offender immediately before the shot was fired, the starting point of nine-and-a-half years was too high and should have been nine years. The Court also found that the Judge failed to consider the issue of totality, and the appropriate sentence would have been 12 years’ imprisonment in total for both the current offending and the aggravated robbery committed by Howard. The appeal was allowed and the sentence was substituted with a sentence of seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment, cumulative on the sentence for CRN 16044005935.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.