Paraha v Police - [2017] NZHC 1887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2017-488-000020 [2017] NZHC 1887

BETWEEN
SHANE PARAHA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 August 2017

Appearances:

N Leader for the Appellant
J P R Scott for the Respondent

Judgment:

7 August 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Nicholas Leader, Barrister, Auckland
Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Whangarei

SHANE PARAHA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1887 [7 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] On 22 May 2017, Mr Paraha was sentenced in the Whangarei District Court by Judge McDonald.1 Mr Paraha was sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard,2 and 18 months’ imprisonment for five charges of assault with a weapon.3 These sentences were to be served concurrently.

[2] Mr Paraha appeals against his sentence.

Factual background

[3] On the night of Saturday 17 December 2016, a group of about six young people went to the Business District in Whangarei to visit local bars and have a night out. At about 2.00 am, when waiting for a taxi to pick them up, members of that group became involved in an argument with Mr Paraha and two of his companions. Around an hour-and-a-half later, at 3.30am, Mr Paraha was sitting in the front passenger seat of a silver Chrysler, which was being driven down Bank Street. The victims were sitting outside a commercial property on the corner of Water and Bank Streets. As the car approached the intersection of Bank Street and Water Street, Mr Paraha wound down the front passenger window of the Chrysler, and rested a paintball gun on the window. He then fired that gun in rapid fire mode at the victims.

[4] Six of the eight members of the group who were sitting outside the property on the corner of Water and Bank Streets were hit by the paintball rounds fired from Mr Paraha’s gun. One of the victims was hit in her right eye and was permanently blinded. She also consequently suffered eye strain, headaches and anxiety after the incident. The other victims were hit with one paintball each, the paintballs striking at different locations on each victim’s body, ranging from the stomach, upper arm,
upper thigh, right side of back and the chest. All those struck to the body suffered

1      Police v Paraha [2017] NZDC 10689.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C(1). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

welts and bruising from being hit with the paintball rounds. One victim stated that they also suffered ongoing emotional effects. I fully expect others did too.

[5] Mr Paraha then quickly left the scene.

[6] When the police located Mr Paraha, he told them that the verbal argument led him and his friends to formulate a plan to retaliate, which was to fire at the other group with a paintball gun if they found them. Mr Paraha said he shot up to ten rounds at the…

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 Paraha v Police

Details

AGLC: Paraha v Police [2017] NZHC 1887
Case: [2017] NZHC 1887
Decision Date: 7 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Paraha, the appellant, brought an appeal against his sentence imposed by the Whangarei District Court. The appellant was sentenced to 25 months' imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard and 18 months' imprisonment for five charges of assault with a weapon, to be served concurrently. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the starting point was too high, there was insufficient discount for his personal mitigating factors, and insufficient discount for his guilty plea. The appeal was allowed by Hinton J. The starting point was set too high and should have been two years and four months' imprisonment. The appellant's discount for his mitigating factors was not insufficient, however, the discount for his guilty plea should have been 25 per cent, not 20 per cent. In light of the appellant's age, remorse, and the fact that this was his first violent offence, Hinton J substituted the sentence of imprisonment with a sentence of home detention. The appellant was sentenced to nine months' home detention, to be served at 31 Tauroa Street, Raumanga, Whangarei. The appellant was required to attend alcohol counselling, a Tikanga Māori programme, and any other programme as directed by the probation officer.

Orders