Legal Research
Cases
R v Hakopa

R v Hakopa

Case [2020] NZHC 2763 21 October 2020

Breach of Peace

Mens Rea & Intention

Excessive Self-Defence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2019-083-000951

[2020] NZHC 2763

THE QUEEN

v

TE AO DION HAKOPA

Hearing: 21 October 2020

Counsel:

H C Mallalieu for the Crown

E A Hall and A S C Brosnahan for Mr Hakopa

Sentencing:

21 October 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOOGUE J

Mihi

E te rangatira e Kerrin Haere, haere, haere atu rā
Haere ki Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pāmamao Ki te kainga tūturu mō tatou, mō te tāngata

Kei te ngau tōnu te mamae i te ngākau o te tāngata kua mahue i tēnei taha o te arai. Nō reira, e moe, otiia atu.

Ka huri ki a tātou, tēna koutou katoa kua huihui i te ata nei Ki te whānau o te hunga mate
Ka nui te mihi.
Ki a koe, e Te Ao
Kei te mihi ki a koutou ko tōu whānau
Nō reira, tēna koutou, tēna koutou, tēna koutou katoa

R v HAKOPA [2020] NZHC 2763 [21 October 2020]

To the deceased Kerrin Farewell
Travel on your final journey to great Hawaiki, long Hawaiki, and distant Hawaiki The final resting place of us all
The pain of your departure gnaws at the heart of those that remain on this side of the veil
So farewell and rest peacefully Turning to those present
To the whānau of the deceased, I greet you
I acknowledge Kerrin and your whanau present So I greet you once, twice, and three times.

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Ao Dion Hakopa, you appear for sentence on one charge of manslaughter.1 The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.

[2] In pleading guilty to the charge, you acknowledge you caused the death of Mr Kerrin Payne, also known as Ted, on 13 July 2019.

Facts

[3] Sadly – but not unusually – the events that unfolded on 13 July 2019 find their origin in excessive consumption of alcohol and violence by you and Mr Payne.

The pursuit

[4] You had been drinking Cody’s Bourbon and Cola mixed with spirits with your friends at your home in the garage. You had all been drinking continuously since the early afternoon that day. At around 11.00 pm that night, you and your long-term friend Gilly went around to the Payne household.

[5] At the Payne household the mood was light and everyone was socialising. You started playing the fool and Mr Payne took exception to that. At one point he grabbed you by the throat/shirt area and pulled you in close and threatened you. You told Mr Seymour (who the police put you with in the back of the police car to assist them)

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171.

the fight started with Mr Payne gripping you around the throat area. Mr Payne was taunting you that he and another man had had sex with your partner, Ms Giddens. You told Mr Payne that you did not believe him and that you were heading home. You then left…

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 Hakopa

Details

AGLC: R v Hakopa [2020] NZHC 2763
Case: [2020] NZHC 2763
Decision Date: 21 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Te Ao Dion Hakopa was sentenced for the manslaughter of Kerrin Payne, following a dispute that escalated to fatal violence. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the circumstances of the offence, which involved excessive self-defence triggered by ongoing threats and physical assaults from the victim. The sentencing process involved assessing the culpability of Hakopa, balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence, and applying personal mitigating factors such as Hakopa's difficult upbringing and systemic deprivation, his early guilty plea, expression of remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the starting point for sentencing was four years and six months' imprisonment, but after considering all mitigating factors, the final sentence was reduced to one year and eight months' imprisonment, converted to 12 months' home detention due to the lesser restrictiveness and the suitability for community-based punishment. The sentence also included specific conditions to ensure Hakopa's compliance and to protect the community, such as abstaining from alcohol and drugs, avoiding contact with the victim's family, and attending a non-violence programme. Additionally, Hakopa was issued a first strike warning under the three strikes law, highlighting the severe consequences of any future serious violence convictions.

Orders