R v Chase - [2017] NZHC 244

PROHIBITION ON PUBLISHING THE NAME, IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, ADDRESS OR OCCUPATION OF THE COMPLAINANT, BEING A PERSON AGAINST WHOM AN OFFENCE AGAINST S 128
CRIMES ACT 1961 HAS BEEN COMMITTED, PURSUANT TO S 203
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-087-001073 [2017] NZHC 244

THE QUEEN

v

HOANI JOHN CHASE DEFENDANT

Hearing: 23 February 2017

Counsel:

A Pollett for Crown
R O Gowing for defendant

Judgment:

23 February 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Gowing & Co Lawyers Limited, Whakatane

R v CHASE [2017] NZHC 244 [23 February 2017]

[1] Mr Chase, you were convicted of 28 charges following a judge alone trial before me in October last year. The charges largely relate to serious violent and sexual offending against your former partner, over a period of sixteen years. You were also convicted of threatening to kill her son. During the course of the trial you also pleaded guilty to two further charges, one of receiving property stolen in a burglary of the complainant’s home after your relationship had ended and one of possessing ammunition. You were acquitted of a further six charges and two charges were withdrawn during trial.

[2] Full details of your offending are set out in the Reasons for Verdicts1 I have previously delivered. As those reasons are 113 pages long I will not attempt to repeat all of those details here today. Rather, I will provide a broad overview of your offending, for sentencing purposes.

The offending

[3] One evening in April 1998 a young woman in her early 20s went out with her friends to celebrate her birthday. She met you at a party. You were considerably older than her. She was in a celebratory mood, however, and under the influence of a few drinks she agreed to spend the night with you. That ‘spur of the moment’ decision changed the course of her life. It was the beginning of 16 years of physical and emotional abuse at your hands, which drove her to multiple suicide attempts and left her permanently scarred, both physically and emotionally.

[4] The afternoon following your first night together you returned to her house wearing your Mongrel Mob patch. She told you that what had happened the night before had only happened because she was drunk. Further, she did not want “the gang stuff” in her or her young son’s life. You appeared to accept this and departed. Rejection was not in your vocabulary, however. You returned late that night. The complainant opened her door and said “Hi”, thinking you may have left something behind. Before she could say anything further you punched her hard in the face, knocking her out. When she came to, lying bleeding and disoriented on the
floor, her six-year-old son was crying by her side, having been awoken from sleep.

1 R v Chase [2016] NZHC 2665.

You were crouching down with one knee on her chest. You were swearing…

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 Chase

Details

AGLC: R v Chase [2017] NZHC 244
Case: [2017] NZHC 244
Decision Date: 23 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Hoani John Chase, was convicted of 28 charges following a judge alone trial before Katz J in the High Court of New Zealand. The charges largely related to serious violent and sexual offending against his former partner, over a period of sixteen years. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence, including whether a sentence of preventive detention was appropriate. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending, and concluded that the appropriate starting point for the sexual offending was 16 years’ imprisonment, uplifted to 18 years and six months’ imprisonment to reflect the totality of the offending. The court considered whether there were any personal aggravating or mitigating factors that warranted adjusting the starting point, but found none. The court then considered whether a sentence of preventive detention was appropriate, and concluded that an appropriate level of community protection could be achieved by a lengthy determinate sentence and the prospect of an extended supervision order at the end of the sentence. The court sentenced the defendant to 18 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a minimum term of imprisonment of nine years and three months.

Orders