R v Hanara - [2023] NZHC 2057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-220-40

[2023] NZHC 2057

THE KING

v

HAAMI HANARA

Hearing: 2 August 2023

Appearances:

S B Manning for Crown

R M Mansfield KC (via AVL) and T J Buckley for Defendant

Judgment:

2 August 2023

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Hanara, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter for offending you committed in March 2018, when you were 14 years old. You are now 19.

The offending

[2] On the night of 4 March 2018 you and a group of your friends — five other youths between 14 and 16 years of age — decided to steal alcohol from the Flaxmere Tavern. Mr Donner, the victim, was 40 years of age and chose to sleep rough. You and your group approached him at about 10 pm and asked to borrow his torch.1

1 The facts are based on the agreed statement of facts.

R v HANARA [2023] NZHC 2057 [2 August 2023]

[3] You asked because you needed a light to see where the alcohol was located but, when Mr Donner asked you for the torch back, you refused for whatever reason.

[4] That led to an attack by the group on Mr Donner with items that could be found nearby, including wood and bottles. Defending himself, he threw several bottles at the group.

[5] You moved into the shadows, away from the street light, with a knife in your hand.

[6] The rest of the group advanced toward Mr Donner throwing items at him, including a bike and pieces of broken concrete.

[7] Mr Donner retreated as that group came toward him and you moved out of the shadow area and moved in Mr Donner’s direction as he was retreating. You and Mr Donner ended up in a direct confrontation. You used the knife to stab Mr Donner four times — twice in the neck, once to his upper chest, and once to the front of his left shoulder. The first stab wound caused his carotid artery to sever and the second wound missed his major arteries but hit his jugular vein. The last two stab wounds were not life-threatening. It was the first two that caused his death.

[8] Mr Donner fell to the ground and the rest of your group began stomping and kicking him.

[9]Then you ran off. Mr Donner died of his injuries at the scene.

Impact of offending

[10] The Court has received a number of victim impact statements from members of Mr Donner’s family describing the impact of his loss on them. It is clear they have been deeply affected by his death.

[11] Mr Manning indicated that the family would have been here today. However, a serious family issue means that they have not been able to be here. They would have been if possible.

[12] Mr Donner leaves behind two children who will not…

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 [2023] NZHC 2057
Case: [2023] NZHC 2057
Decision Date: 2 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hanara involved the sentencing of Haami Hanara, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter for an offence committed in March 2018 when he was 14 years old. The incident involved Hanara and a group of friends attacking a man, Mr Donner, who subsequently died from stab wounds inflicted by Hanara. The legal issues in the case centred on determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing and applying the necessary aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at a final sentence. The court had to consider the use of a weapon, the level of premeditation, the vulnerability of the victim, the immaturity and neurodisabilities of the defendant, and the timing of the guilty plea. After considering these factors, the court determined a starting point of seven and a half years’ imprisonment, then applied discounts for the defendant’s guilty plea, youth, neurodisabilities, personal circumstances, and remorse. The final sentence was two years and 7.5 months’ imprisonment, with Hanara entitled to immediate release due to time served. The court also imposed standard and special release conditions to assist Hanara's reintegration into the community.

Orders