Morehu v The King - [2023] NZHC 3684

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT/ PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2023-483-19

[2023] NZHC 3684

BETWEEN
JAKE MOREHU

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 13 December 2023

Appearances:

D M Goodlet for the Appellant K D Turner for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors
D M Goodlet, Barrister, Whanganui Crown Solicitor, Whanganui

MOREHU v R [2023] NZHC 3684 [13 December 2023]

What happened?

[1] In early December 2021, in Whanganui, Mr Jake Morehu, aged 26, messaged and met up with the complainant, a vulnerable 15-year-old girl with mental health and neurodevelopmental issues. He supplied her with methamphetamine and demanded sex as payment. She felt she had no choice and complied. On 28 December 2021, Mr Morehu messaged and met the complainant again. His female partner and co-offender asked for the complainant’s phone. When the complainant refused, the co-offender verbally abused, assaulted, and punched the complainant in the face. Mr Morehu and the co-offender blocked the door to prevent her from leaving. The complainant punched the co-offender and Mr Morehu punched the complainant, who fell and was kicked. The victim impact statement shows that the offending and trauma resulting from it exacerbated the complainant’s vulnerabilities and mental health issues, as well as causing extensive emotional harm and ongoing physical effects.

[2] Following a sentencing indication, Mr Morehu pleaded guilty to supplying methamphetamine and being a party to assault with intent to injure, which are punishable by maximum terms of life and three years’ imprisonment respectively.1

[3] The pre-sentence report by the Department of Corrections stated that Mr Morehu minimised his involvement in the assault but showed remorse for the impact of the offending. It recommended imprisonment. A report was provided to the sentencing Judge from Huarahi Rereke Services under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. It identified events in Mr Morehu’s childhood, and other trauma, that contributed to his behaviour, including his addiction to methamphetamine. He grew up around heavy drug users. His aunty referred to him as a “drug baby”. To cope with trauma he used drugs from the age of 13 and methamphetamine from the age of 18. He was smoking between two and three grams of methamphetamine by the time he was 22. He appears motivated to rehabilitate and has the support of his father. He is open to attending a residential rehabilitation facility, wants to start counselling, and is doing self-help modules. He wants to learn more about his Māori heritage and gain full-time employment.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2); and Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 193.

[4] On 18 October 2023, in the District Court at Whanganui, Judge J M Marinovich sentenced Mr Morehu to two years and two weeks’ imprisonment:2

(a)The Judge…

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 Morehu v The King

Details

AGLC: Morehu v The King [2023] NZHC 3684
Case: [2023] NZHC 3684
Decision Date: 13 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Morehu v The King concerns the sentence imposed on Mr Jake Morehu for supplying methamphetamine to a vulnerable 15-year-old girl and being a party to an assault with intent to injure. The District Court at Whanganui sentenced Mr Morehu to two years and two weeks’ imprisonment, which he appeals. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive and whether the remission of fines and substitution by a two-week increase in the term of imprisonment was lawful.

The court found that while Mr Morehu's background of deprivation and addiction did contribute to his offending, the two-month discount given by the District Court was not outside the range available. The court considered the causative contribution of Mr Morehu’s background to be less than in cases where a 15 to 20 per cent discount has been made. The court also considered Mr Morehu's membership in the Nomads gang, which affected his prospects for rehabilitation. However, the court concluded that the two-month discount was within the range available.

The court further found that the remission of Mr Morehu’s outstanding fines and the imposition of a two-week increase in the term of imprisonment in substitution for the fines was an error. The court held that the legal preconditions for a substituted sentence under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 were not met, as there was no record of an assessment of Mr Morehu’s financial capacity, nor was there evidence that the Judge considered the assessment or other methods of enforcing the fines. The court quashed the order remitting fines and substituting a sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment and reinstated the outstanding fines.

The appeal was allowed in part. The court reinstated the outstanding fines and quashed the two-week sentence imposed in substitution for them. The total sentence of imprisonment remained at two years, with special release conditions relating to alcohol and drug assessment and treatment. The court did not replace the sentence of imprisonment with home detention, considering that the nature of the offending meant that denunciation, deterrence, the protection of the community, and the interests of the victim were key purposes of sentencing, which home detention would not achieve in these circumstances.

Orders