Kaa v Police - [2016] NZHC 2139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2016-419-000030 [2016] NZHC 2139

BETWEEN
ANTHONY JOSEPH KAA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 September 2016

Counsel:

S McKenna & J Alchin-Bolter for Appellant
S F Gilbert for Respondent

Judgment:

9 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2016 at 2.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel: Grantham Law, Hamilton Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

KAA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2139 [9 September 2016]

[1] The appellant, Anthony Kaa, appeals against the sentence of two years six months’ imprisonment that was imposed on him in the District Court at Hamilton for two offences of male assaults female and one offence of driving whilst disqualified.

Facts

[2] Mr Kaa and the victim of the two male assaults female offences have been in a domestic relationship for 14 years. At the time of the offending, they had four children together .

[3] At about 8.30 am on Monday 28 December 2015, Mr Kaa was with the victim at 216 Wainui Road, Raglan. He went to a sleep out on the property where the victim was sleeping. He asked her for money. After getting some money he took their children to the store to get food. He returned approximately 10 minutes later and went back to the sleep out. The victim was in bed with her 10 month old son. He asked the victim to get up as his family was leaving and he wanted her to say goodbye to them. She said she would get up later as there was no hurry.

[4] Mr Kaa continued telling the victim to get up and so she told him to leave. He approached her while she was still lying in bed and started yelling at her. As he was standing over the victim he punched her twice in the face using a closed right fist. The punches struck the victim on the right side of her head around her right ear.

[5] Mr Kaa covered the victim’s mouth with his hand to stop her from calling out. The victim pulled his hand away and called for help. Mr Kaa then grabbed the victim’s fingers and forcefully pulled them backwards away from her face. Mr Kaa’s brother heard the commotion and went to the sleep out. He attempted to calm Mr Kaa down. Mr Kaa’s sister also entered the sleep out to remove the couple’s 10 month old child. Mr Kaa then left the sleep out and returned to Hamilton with his three eldest children, leaving the 10 month old child and the victim at the address in Raglan.

[6] As a result of the assault, the victim suffered pain and bruising to her right ear. She suffered two bruised and swollen fingers on her right hand.

[7] The second assault on the victim occurred at about 12.30 am on Saturday

6 February 2016. Mr…

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 Kaa v Police

Details

AGLC: Kaa v Police [2016] NZHC 2139
Case: [2016] NZHC 2139
Decision Date: 9 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kaa v Police, Anthony Kaa appealed against the sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court for two offences of male assaults female and one offence of driving whilst disqualified. The High Court of New Zealand reviewed the District Court's decision, focusing on the method used by the District Court Judge to determine the sentences for the male assaults female offences, which Mr Kaa argued were excessively high. The High Court found that the District Court Judge erred in the choice of starting points for the sentences and by increasing the sentence for reasons of totality after allowing a discount for the guilty pleas. This error resulted in a sentence that was significantly higher than appropriate for the offending, leading the Court to conclude that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal against the sentences for the male assaults female offences was allowed, and the sentences were set aside, replaced with concurrent sentences of 15 months' imprisonment for each offence. The sentence for the disqualified driving offence was upheld.

The Court's reasoning demonstrated a meticulous analysis of the sentencing process, highlighting the importance of adhering to standard sentencing approaches and principles to ensure sentences are proportionate and reflect the true culpability of the offender. The Court's decision underscores the need for careful consideration of all relevant factors and the avoidance of errors that can lead to manifestly excessive sentences.

Orders