KAYLEB RENATA AND THE KING - [2024] NZCA 469

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA228/2024
[2024] NZCA 469

BETWEEN	KAYLEB RENATA Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	1 August 2024
Court:	Courtney, Mander and Walker JJ
Counsel:	C A Gentleman for Applicant J M Pridgeon for Respondent
Judgment:	20 September 2024 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is declined.

B The application for an extension of time to appeal is declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

In February 2021 Kayleb Renata, then 16 years old, and two associates, embarked on an unprovoked, and ultimately fatal, attack on another man. The victim, Jamaine Wharton, tried to escape several times. Each time, he was chased, caught and the attack resumed. Eventually, Mr Renata stabbed Mr Wharton three times and Mr Wharton died before he could reach hospital.
Mr Renata was found guilty of murder at a jury trial before Davison J. The Judge imposed a life sentence, with a 10-year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI).[1] Mr Renata wishes to appeal the sentence on the basis (relying on Dickey v R)[2] that his age at the time of the offending and his personal circumstances mean that a life sentence is manifestly unjust.
[1]R v Renata [2022] NZHC 2745.
[2]Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2, [2023] 2 NZLR 405.
Mr Renata is some 17 months out of time to bring an appeal. He has applied for an extension of time to do so.[3] The principles relevant to granting an extension of time to appeal were summarised by this Court in Kriel v R.[4] The ultimate consideration is the interests of justice and, in determining whether it would be in the interests of justice to allow an appeal to be brought out of time, the Court must consider the societal interest in the finality of litigation, as well as the interests of the prospective appellant in having their sentence reviewed. The length of the delay and the reasons for it, and the strength of the proposed appeal, will be relevant.[5]

Application to adduce evidence

[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 248(2) and (4).

[4]Kriel v R [2024] NZCA 45 at [79]–[87], citing R v Knight [1998] 1 NZLR 583 (CA), R v Mitchell [1977] 1 WLR 753 (CA), R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, [2017] AC 387, R v Johnson [2016] EWCA Crim 1613, [2017] 4 All ER 769, R v Lee [2006] 3 NZLR 42 (CA), and Mikus v R [2011] NZCA 298.

[5]R v Knight, above n 4, at 589.

Mr Renata seeks to adduce evidence from a psychiatrist, Dr Kumar, to support his application. The report was obtained in July 2022, during the trial but before sentencing. There is no explanation as to why it was not put before the Judge at sentencing. However, the report does not contain much more information than was already…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read KAYLEB RENATA AND THE KING and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZCA 469
Decision Date: 20 September 2024 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kayleb Renata, the applicant sought leave to adduce further evidence and an extension of time to appeal his conviction and sentence for murder. The case was heard before Courtney, Mander, and Walker JJ. Counsel for the applicant, C A Gentleman, and counsel for the respondent, J M Pridgeon, presented their arguments. The court delivered its judgment on 20 September 2024, declining both applications.

The central legal issues before the court were whether new evidence could be adduced in support of the application for leave to appeal and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to appeal the sentence. The applicant argued that his age at the time of the offending and his personal circumstances warranted a reassessment of the sentence, referencing the precedent set in Dickey v R. However, the court found that the proposed evidence did not significantly differ from what was already before the sentencing judge and would not advance the applicant’s position.

Regarding the application for an extension of time to appeal, the court considered the applicant's explanation for the delay, which was attributed to his trial counsel’s workload and late awareness of the Dickey appeal. While the court accepted that the delay was adequately explained, it ultimately concluded that the likely strength of the appeal did not warrant an extension. The court emphasised the societal interest in the finality of litigation and noted that the applicant’s personal circumstances, while mitigating, did not render a life sentence manifestly unjust.

The court found that the offending was unprovoked and involved a severe and sustained attack, culminating in the fatal stabbing of the victim. The applicant’s level of culpability was deemed high, particularly given his role in escalating the violence by using a knife. Although the applicant had a troubled background and exhibited signs of conduct disorder, these factors did not sufficiently mitigate his culpability to warrant a different sentencing outcome.

The court's final orders were to decline both the application for leave to adduce further evidence and the application for an extension of time to appeal.

Orders