R v Cahill - [2022] NZHC 3030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-041-880

[2022] NZHC 3030

THE KING

v

HEMI RAPATA MEIHANA CAHILL

Sentencing: 18 November 2022

Counsel:

S B Manning for the Crown E J Forster for Mr Cahill

Sentencing Notes:

18 November 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Hemi Rapata Meihana Cahill you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of murder1 and aggravated robbery.2 At trial, you were convicted on a charge of assault with a weapon.3

[2] You came before me for a sentence indication in September 2022. I indicated that your sentence for the murder charge would be life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 and a half years to be reduced by 18 months if you pleaded guilty. You accepted that sentence indication and pleaded guilty. At that time

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 172(1): the presumptive sentence for murder is life imprisonment.
2      Section 235(b) carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 202C carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

R v CAHILL [2022] NZHC 3030 [18 November 2022]

I noted the possibility of further reductions in your minimum period of imprisonment depending on the pre-sentence reports I would receive.

[3] I now have a Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report, prepared by the Department of Corrections on 3 November 2022, a s 27 cultural report into your background and a Restorative Justice Conference Report. The reports have given me more relevant information to decide on a final sentence. I emphasise at the outset that your sentence will not be higher than what I indicated in September, so please do not worry about that.

[4] Although you heard the comments I made in my sentence indication in September, I will repeat some of those comments which explain the way in which I reach the sentence. Because sentencing is a public function, I will also describe the background facts that are relevant to the sentencing process.

[5] In sentencing you today, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The main purposes of sentencing in your case are to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused to Mr Lui, his family and the community; to denounce your conduct; to deter you, and others, from committing the same kind of offending; to protect the community; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.4 The sentence I decide on has to mark the callous and cruel nature of your crime, but also to acknowledge who you are and your particular circumstances and background.

The offending

[6] I am now going to talk briefly about the facts of what happened. I apologise in advance because I know that repeating what happened will be upsetting for family members here in Court today.

[7] On the afternoon of 29 March 2021, you and your co-defendant, Mr Te Aonui-…

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 R v Cahill

Details

AGLC: R v Cahill [2022] NZHC 3030
Case: [2022] NZHC 3030
Decision Date: 18 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cahill involved Hemi Rapata Meihana Cahill, who was sentenced for charges of murder, aggravated robbery, and assault with a weapon. The court considered the appropriate sentence for Cahill, focusing on the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The primary objectives included holding Cahill accountable for the harm caused to the victim and his family, denouncing the conduct, deterring Cahill and others from similar offenses, protecting the community, and facilitating Cahill's rehabilitation.

The court examined the brutal nature of the crime, where Cahill and his co-defendant chased and attacked the victim, Mr Peter Lui, resulting in his death. Victim impact statements from Mr Lui's family highlighted the profound grief and loss they experienced. The court also considered pre-sentence reports, including a Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report, a cultural report, and a Restorative Justice Conference Report, to understand Cahill's background and personal circumstances. These reports detailed Cahill's troubled upbringing, drug addiction, and gang affiliation, which contributed to his offending behavior.

In determining the sentence, the court balanced the seriousness of the crime with Cahill's mitigating factors, including his guilty plea and expressed remorse. The court acknowledged Cahill's participation in a restorative justice meeting with Mr Lui's family, which demonstrated his willingness to confront the consequences of his actions. After considering all factors, the court sentenced Cahill to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 and a half years, to be served concurrently with sentences for aggravated robbery and assault with a weapon.

Orders