Koormanthara v Police

[2016] NZHC 2498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-418-000003 [2016] NZHC 2498

BETWEEN

ABHISHEK GOKULAN

KOORMANTHARA Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	18 October 2016
Appearances:	Appellant Appears in Person C E Martyn for Respondent
Judgment:	19 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

KOORMANTHARA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2498 [19 October 2016]

[1]      The appellant appeals against a sentence imposed by Judge Kellar in the District Court at Greymouth on 12 July 2016 following his guilty plea on one charge of common assault. That sentence was for:

(a)       A fine of $500,

(b)      An order to pay court costs of $130; and

(c)       A further emotional harm reparation order of $500 to be paid to the victim.

[2]      The appellant primarily appeals against the order for $500 reparation, arguing that he has since amended his relationship with the victim, and paid for her subsequent medical costs and a two week holiday in the West Coast.

[3]      The appellant appeals as of right.1   However, the appeal must only be allowed if the Court is satisfied that there was an error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should be imposed.2

[4]      At the outset I need to say that, in my judgment, this appeal can be readily disposed of.   The sentence imposed by Judge Keller is well within the range of available sentences within the Court’s discretion.  The decision could even, in my view, be considered lenient in light of established authorities where similar incidents have occurred.   By way of broad example, in  R v Reihana, a Court of Appeal decision referred to by the Crown, the defendant had been convicted on one charge

of male assaults female for punching his estranged partner.3   Although Reihana does

differ from the present case in that there, the charge was one of male assaults female and not simply common assault as is the case here, it does have certain similarities involving, as it does, uninvited entry and comparable injuries to the complainant. The Court of Appeal in Reihana, in the circumstances of that case, held that a

sentence of five months’ imprisonment was appropriate.

1      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 244

2      Section 250.

3      R v Reihana CA143/03, 3 July 2003.

[5]      As I see it, in the present case, the fine of $500 and the order to pay court costs of $130 reflect the need to hold the defendant accountable for the harm done, to promote a sense of responsibility in him, and to denounce and deter the defendant and others from committing the same or similar crimes.  Furthermore, the reparation order of $500 provided for the interests of the victim and to compensate her to some extent for the harm done by the offending.

[6]      If the victim does not wish the reparation to be paid, and the appellant is facing financial difficulty, he may make an appropriate application through ss 38A and 72 of the Sentencing Act 2002 to the sentencing court.  This, however, has no bearing on the appeal before me.

Result

[7]      For  all  the  reasons  outlined  above,  I  am  satisfied  that  there  is  no  less restrictive outcome that could have been imposed in the District Court than the financial penalties imposed here.

[8]      Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

...................................................

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co

Copy to Appellant