R v Hanara - [2019] NZHC 78

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-220-40

[2019] NZHC 78

THE QUEEN

v

HAAMI HANARA

Hearing: 5 February 2019

Counsel:

S B Manning and C Stuart for Crown E J Forster for Prisoner

Sentencing:

5 February 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]Mr Hanara, please stand.

[2] Haami Hanara, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of murder.1 You had already pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary arising from
the same incident.2 The two main issues for me to decide today are whether, on the
charge of murder, I sentence you to life imprisonment or to a finite term, and also what minimum term of imprisonment you should serve.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(a) and (b), and s 172; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Section 231(1); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

[3] I now need to explain to you, to the victim’s family, and other members of the public the reasons behind the sentence that I will impose. It will be necessary for me to do that at some length, and unfortunately, there may at times be words that I use that you do not understand. But you have Mr Stephenson, your communication assistant, with you and he will be able to explain things to you that I am saying and be able to answer any questions you have afterwards. It is important though, that I explain myself in a way that can be understood by the people who have been affected by your actions and the wider public in general.

[4]Now while I do that, you may be seated beside Mr Stephenson.

[5]In sentencing you, I need to cover certain facts. I need to explain:

(a)your offending;

(b)the impact it has had on your victim’s family;

(c)the purposes and principles of sentencing;

(d)the presumption of life imprisonment;

(e)the circumstances of the offending;

(f)your personal circumstances, in particular your youth and what has been described as the mental impairment; and

(g)the concept of the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI).

Your offending

[6] On Sunday 4 March 2018, you and four others went to the Flaxmere Tavern, intending to commit burglary. You came across the victim, Kelly Donner, in a caged service area at the rear of the tavern. You asked if you could borrow his torch. He handed it over to you. A short time later, he asked for his torch back but that request was refused. This led to a physical altercation between you and your group on the one

hand, and Mr Donner. That involved pieces of wood, bottles and even bits of broken concrete being thrown at Mr Donner.

[7] You, however, had a knife. You hid behind a wall and, as Mr Donner retreated, turning away from you and the…

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 [2019] NZHC 78
Case: [2019] NZHC 78
Decision Date: 5 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Haami Hanara, who was found guilty of murder and had already pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary. The High Court of New Zealand had to decide whether to sentence Hanara to life imprisonment or a finite term for the murder charge, and determine the minimum term of imprisonment. The Court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, the impact of the crime on the victim's family, and Hanara's personal circumstances, including his youth and mental impairment. The Court found that the circumstances of the offending did not make a life sentence manifestly unjust, but his youth and mental impairment justified reducing the minimum period of imprisonment to 10 years. The Court sentenced Hanara to life imprisonment for the murder charge, with a minimum term of 10 years, and three months' imprisonment for the burglary charge, to be served concurrently.

Orders