Following a jury trial in the District Court at Christchurch Michelle Hurinui was found guilty of a charge of assault with a weapon. Judge MacAskill sentenced her to 18 months’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]R v Hurinui DC Christchurch CRI-2013-009-2641, 5 February 2014.
Ms Hurinui appeals against her conviction and sentence.

Background

Ms Hurinui lived at 17 Korora Street, Christchurch. Ms McWilliams and her partner lived next door at number 19. The victim of the assault was the sister of Ms McWilliam’s partner. It was the victim’s 21st birthday on 30 January 2013 and about 10 people were at Ms McWilliams’ place on 29 January to celebrate. At about 10.30 pm that night there was a confrontation between a group of people associated with Ms Hurinui and the group at number 19.
The confrontation escalated to a fight involving several people. One of the victim’s female friends became engaged in a fight with a female from number 17. When the victim went to pull her friend out of the fight she was hit on the forehead with a baseball bat wielded by Ms Hurinui.
The blow caused significant injury. It split the victim’s skin over her forehead. The wound required 15 stitches. The victim experienced discomfort and soreness to her forehead for several weeks. At the time of trial she was still suffering from headaches.
Ms Hurinui’s defence was that someone else had administered the blow rather than her. Counsel suggested that either someone else had deliberately hit the victim, or the victim may have been hit by Ms McWilliams by mistake when Ms McWilliams was using a child’s plastic scooter to hit another female. The jury rejected those arguments.
In his sentencing remarks, the Judge indicated that he considered the jury was right to reject the alternative theories offered by the defence. He noted that at no time was the victim engaged in violence. She was intervening to help bring it to an end. Ms Hurinui had no reason to hit the victim.
The probation officer who completed the pre-sentence report did not consider Ms Hurinui suitable for home detention but recommended intensive supervision and community detention. The Judge considered the seriousness of the offending precluded a community based sentence. The Judge was satisfied that this was calculated violence with the potential to cause very serious injury. He was concerned at the use of a weapon by Ms Hurinui, bearing in mind this was not the first time she had used a weapon to commit serious violence. The Judge was aware of Ms Hurinui’s responsibilities in…

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 Hurinui v R

Details

AGLC: Hurinui v R [2014] NZCA 290
Case: [2014] NZCA 290
Decision Date: 1 July 2014 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michelle Hurinui appeals against both her conviction and sentence for assault with a weapon. The appeal against conviction focuses on the admissibility of evidence of gang associations, which the appellant's counsel argued was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant. The appeal against sentence contends that the 18-month imprisonment sentence was too high.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision to admit evidence of gang associations as relevant contextual evidence that helped explain the background and circumstances leading to the assault. The court considered the evidence was necessary for the jury to understand the nature of the confrontation and the reasons behind the use of weapons. The court also found the judge's directions to the jury adequately mitigated any prejudicial effect of the gang evidence.

Regarding the sentence, the court found the 18-month imprisonment sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the assault, the use of a weapon, and the appellant's history of violent offending. The court rejected the argument that the sentence was too high, noting that any lesser sentence would have been unrealistic given the circumstances.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The appellant's conviction and 18-month imprisonment sentence are affirmed.

Orders