R v Enoka - [2017] NZHC 2032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-001603 [2017] NZHC 2032

THE QUEEN

v

ALBERT ENOKA

Hearing: 23 August 2017

Appearances:

C J Lange for the Crown
A J D Bamford for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 August 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Enoka, you are to be sentenced today as a result of events that occurred between 14 and 17 February 2015. You were arrested on a number of charges and first appeared in Court on those charges on 18 February 2015.

[2] On 7 August 2015, you pleaded guilty to a charge of driving while disqualified, a charge of providing false details as to your identity and a charge of unlawfully removing an impounded vehicle. You continued to plead not guilty on a number of other charges.

[3] On 19 February 2016, you pleaded guilty to charges of possession of a class
A drug methamphetamine for supply, possession of class C cannabis for supply and unlawful possession of a firearm.

R v ENOKA [2017] NZHC 2032 [23 August 2017]

[4] On 3 June 2016, shortly before you were to go to trial on the remaining charges, you pleaded guilty to a charge that on 15 February 2015, together with Lindsay Trevor Francis, you entered a building at 39 Kibblewhite Street without authority and with intent to commit an imprisonable offence therein, namely assault, and you had with you a knife. You also pleaded guilty to a charge that on 15
February 2015 at Christchurch, with intent to injure Simon Ferenc Kovacs, you wounded Simon Ferenc Kovacs. You also pleaded guilty to a charge that on or about
15 February 2015, together with Mr Francis, you unlawfully detained Toni Neho with her consent obtained by duress, with intent to cause her to be confined. You were to be sentenced on 12 July 2016.

[5] On 8 July 2016, through your new lawyer, you filed an application to withdraw your guilty pleas on those three last charges. And, on 26 August 2016, again through your counsel, you limited your application to change a plea to just the kidnapping or unlawful detainment charge. After a hearing on 5 December 2016, in a judgment of 16 January 2017, I declined your application and remanded you for sentence on 16 February 2017. Just prior to that scheduled sentencing, your counsel indicated that you wanted to have a disputed facts hearing over certain matters that had been set out in the summary of facts relating to the charges to which you had pleaded guilty.

[6] That disputed facts hearing took place on 10 April 2017. My judgment of 11

April 2017 records the conclusions I came to on the matters which were in dispute.

[7] The facts of the offending on which you must be sentenced thus emerge from the summary of facts and the evidence from the disputed facts hearing.

[8] At the time of this offending, you were a member of the Rebels Gang and president of its…

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 Enoka

Details

AGLC: R v Enoka [2017] NZHC 2032
Case: [2017] NZHC 2032
Decision Date: 23 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Enoka involved sentencing for the defendant, Albert Enoka, who had pleaded guilty to various charges including aggravated burglary, wounding with intent, unlawful detainment, possession of drugs, and possession of firearms. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Enoka considering the totality of his offending and his personal circumstances. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, Enoka's history of violence, and the risk he posed to the community. The court also took into account Enoka's attempts to address personal issues and his potential for rehabilitation.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court decided to impose a sentence of 13 years' imprisonment for the totality of Enoka's offending. The court adjusted the starting point sentence for the various charges, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also considered the possibility of preventive detention but ultimately decided against it, given Enoka's potential for rehabilitation and the need for a finite term of imprisonment.

The final orders of the court were that Enoka was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for various charges, with the sentences for aggravated burglary, wounding with intent, and unlawful detainment being cumulative, resulting in a total sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. Enoka was also disqualified from driving for 12 months and received a first strike warning on three charges.

Orders