R v Dick-Karetai - [2022] NZHC 1536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2021-012-1669

[2022] NZHC 1536

THE QUEEN

v

KRISHAN RANUI DICK-KARETAI

Hearing: 30 June 2022

Appearances:

R P Bates and M E A Brosnan for Crown C D Savage for Defendant

Judgment:

30 June 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1] Mr Dick-Karetai you have pleaded guilty and you appear for sentence on a charge of attempted murder. And, as you know, that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] You accepted the summary of facts prepared by the Crown. It explains that you knew both the victim, Mr Hemi Tahuri, and his partner, Missy Parata. Mr Tahuri and Ms Parata had been in a long-term relationship. However, in 2020, they were separated and this is when you met Ms Parata and you formed a relationship with her.

R v RANUI DICK-KARETAI [2022] NZHC 1536 [30 June 2022]

[3] However, Ms Parata chose to resume her relationship with Mr Tahuri and she tried to end contact with you. However, you would not accept this and you would threaten self-harm or suicide if she did end contact with you. Furthermore, if she did not respond to your text messages promptly, or show her location on social media applications, you would inundate her with messages or calls.

[4] Four family harm episodes were attended by police relating to your unwillingness to accept the relationship with Ms Parata was over. On the first such incident, on 29 August 2021 you were trespassed from the property. However, there were three more incidents over the next month, two of which involved you going back to the property in breach of the trespass order.

[5] On 15 October 2021 you sent Ms Parata 35 abusive messages about the relationship ending. Between 6.46 am and 12.57 pm you also telephoned her 33 times. At 1.47 pm you demanded she indicate her location on her mobile phone. You then phoned her a further five times before messaging her at 2.12 pm saying “you’re a liar and your probably with the fat cunt now”. She replied “I don’t want you and I don’t want you to ever try and message or call me. You need to leave me alone”. You then telephoned her a further 26 times before she called you at 3.13 pm and said to stop calling her. Around the same time, you also sent her eight messages to which she did not reply.

[6] After making a further four telephone calls to Ms Parata you went to Mr Tahuri’s home at about 3.20 pm to talk to her. You drove up the driveway and began tooting your car horn in an attempt to have Ms Parata come out of the house. You then made another eight telephone calls to her while on the property. Mr Tahuri was outside on his ride-on lawn mower and went to speak with you. In the meantime, Ms Parata telephoned…

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 Dick-Karetai

Details

AGLC: R v Dick-Karetai [2022] NZHC 1536
Case: [2022] NZHC 1536
Decision Date: 30 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry, the case of The Queen v Krishan Ranui Dick-Karetai involves the sentencing of Mr Dick-Karetai, who pleaded guilty to the charge of attempted murder. The key legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for this offence, considering the circumstances and aggravating factors involved. The court was required to assess the severity of the injury caused, the use of a lethal weapon, the degree of premeditation, victim vulnerability, and the invasion of the sanctity of the home. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the mitigating factors, such as the offender's guilty plea, good character, and remorse.

The court, in its judgment, found that the attempted murder offence fell within band 3 of the sentencing guidelines, with a starting point of nine to 14 years' imprisonment. The court identified several aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the injury caused, the use of a firearm, and the invasion of the victim's home. The court also took into account the victim impact statements, which highlighted the devastating consequences of the crime on the victim and his family. The court considered various cases with similar facts and determined that the starting point should be 11 and a half years' imprisonment. The court then applied the mitigating factors, including the offender's guilty plea, good character, and remorse, which resulted in a total discount of 40% from the starting point. This led to a final sentence of six years and 11 months' imprisonment for Mr Dick-Karetai.

The court also ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the.22 calibre rifle and ammunition used in the offence, pursuant to section 69 of the Arms Act 1983.

Orders