Legal Research
Cases
R v Hanara

R v Hanara

Case [2025] NZHC 2482 28 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2023-025-838

[2025] NZHC 2482

R

v

ROGER HEMI KIMIHANGA HANARA

Hearing: 28 August 2025

Counsel:

M B Brownlie for Crown J Lucas for Defendant

Judgment:

28 August 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1] Roger Hanara, at the age of 39 you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure.1

[2] I am about to explain my sentencing decision to you. You may now again be seated for the time being, I will tell you when to stand again, thank you.

Facts

[3]I begin first by outlining your offending.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2)—maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.

R v HANARA [2025] NZHC 2482 [28 August 2025]

[4] You are a patched member of the Mongrel Mob. Your offending came to light in the context of a number of police operations into the Mataura Chapter of the Mongrel Mob gang.

[5] On 27 April 2022, you, with other Mataura members of the Mongrel Mob were at an address in Mataura identified as the “Mongrel Mob pad”. The victim, a current patched member, had told the president he wanted to leave the gang. The president did not accept that. Serious and unprovoked violence against the victim then followed. Members of the gang, including you and prospecting members, started punching and kicking the victim.

[6] At various times during the assault, weapons were used by other Mongrel Mob members. A steel chair was used to hit the victim across the head, rendering him unconscious. The sergeant of the Mongrel Mob used a claw hammer to repeatedly strike the victim on his rib and chest area, causing internal injuries and broken ribs. The victim was placed on the back of a utility truck, rolled in an old carpet and delivered to Gore Hospital by you and another member of the gang. Upon returning to the pad, the vehicle was washed down and tape that was applied to the vehicle was removed. The president ordered you and the other members involved in the assault to burn your clothing in a fire at the pad.

[7] The victim suffered a skull fracture, punctured lung, broken ribs, broken teeth, along with head lacerations, bruising and swelling. It took some time for the victim to regain full health, but it is reported he made a full recovery.

Impact on victim

[8] The impact of the victim’s injuries cannot have had anything other than a profound impact on his life. As remarked by Mr Lucas, the victim’s injuries speak for themselves.

Starting point

[9] I turn to the sentencing process. In sentencing you, I have to have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing.2 I have to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused to the victim,3 I have to denounce you conduct in which you were involved,4 and I have to deter you and other persons from committing…

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 Hanara

Details

AGLC: R v Hanara [2025] NZHC 2482
Case: [2025] NZHC 2482
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Roger Hemi Kimihanga Hanara faced sentencing after pleading guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure under the Crimes Act 1961, section 189(2). The court heard that Hanara, a patched member of the Mongrel Mob gang, participated in a violent and prolonged assault on a fellow gang member who sought to leave the gang. The victim suffered severe injuries including a skull fracture, punctured lung, broken ribs, and head lacerations. The assault involved multiple attackers, the use of weapons, and was part of a pre-planned attack.

The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the purposes and principles of sentencing. The key legal issues involved identifying the seriousness of the offending, determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, and considering personal factors that might warrant a discount from the starting point. The court identified several aggravating factors, such as the prolonged and unprovoked nature of the violence, the serious injuries inflicted, and the involvement of a criminal gang. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as Hanara's guilty plea and the injuries he suffered in prison.

The court concluded that Hanara's offending warranted a starting point of three years and six months' imprisonment, placing it within Band 3 of the sentencing guidelines. After applying discounts for Hanara's guilty plea and the injuries he suffered in prison, the court sentenced Hanara to two years and five months' imprisonment. The court emphasised the importance of accountability, denunciation, and deterrence in its sentencing decision.

Orders