R v Hapeta - [2012] NZHC 605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2011-083-000310 [2012] NZHC 605

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH PAUL HAPETA

Hearing: 23 March 2012
(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel: L C Rowe for the Crown
C Tennet for the Accused

Sentence: 23 March 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Hapeta, I’m going to ask you to stand. You appear for sentencing today, having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a) One charge of threatening to kill[1] (maximum penalty: seven years’
[1] Section 306, Crimes Act 1961.

imprisonment);

(b) Two charges of blackmail[2] (maximum penalty: 14 years’
[2] Sections 237(1) and 238, Crimes Act 1961.

imprisonment);

(c) Two charges of robbery[3] (maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment);
[3] Section 234, Crimes Act 1961.

R v HAPETA HC WANG CRI 2011-083-000310 [23 March 2012]

(d) One charge of threatening to damage a dwelling[4] (maximum penalty:
[4] Section 308(a), Crimes Act 1961.

three years’ imprisonment);

(e) One charge of common assault[5] (maximum penalty: 1 year imprisonment);
[5] Section 196, Crimes Act 1961.

(f) One charge of kidnapping[6] (maximum penalty: 14 years’
[6] Section 209, Crimes Act 1961.

imprisonment);

(g) One charge of cultivation of cannabis[7] (maximum penalty: seven
[7] Sections 9(1) and 9(2), Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

years’ imprisonment).

Circumstances of offending

[2] These charges relate to a series of events that occurred between April and December 2010. It began in April 2010 when you arrived unannounced and uninvited at the rural property of a person who I will refer to as Mr F, who was
60 years old and lived alone and did not know you. You have told the probation officer that the reason you did this was that you were wanting to get your 15 year son out of Porirua because he was hanging out with “the Crypts” and you did not want him to be a gangster.

[3] Mr F’s property had a house and a separate cottage. There is a dispute about whether Mr F agreed that you could live in his cottage on the property. The summary of facts says that you informed Mr F that you would be living at the cottage at his address, and that he did not have a choice in the matter. You, however, say that it was agreed that you could move into the cottage and that you would work on the property. The Crown is content to proceed on the basis that the arrangement may have started out as you say, but you soon took advantage of Mr F and became
increasingly controlling and dominating.

[4] You would arrive at Mr F’s house each morning telling him what you wanted him to do each day. You would tell him to call you “Your Honour”, and tell him that if he did not do as he was told, he was dishonouring you and you would kill him and his family. That is the basis for the threat to kill charge.

[5] One morning in September 2010 you and Mr…

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 Hapeta

Details

AGLC: R v Hapeta [2012] NZHC 605
Case: [2012] NZHC 605
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Paul Hapeta was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Wanganui Registry, for various serious offences including threatening to kill, blackmail, robbery, threatening to damage a dwelling, common assault, kidnapping, and cultivation of cannabis. The crimes occurred between April and December 2010 and involved two victims, Mr F and Mr B, who were intimidated and extorted by Hapeta. The court considered multiple factors, including the nature and severity of the crimes, the vulnerable state of the victims, and Hapeta's criminal history and personal circumstances. Hapeta's extensive history of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as his difficult upbringing, were noted as mitigating factors. However, the court ultimately decided that imprisonment was necessary to denounce and deter such criminal activities and to protect the community. The judge imposed a sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment for the blackmail charges, concurrent with sentences for the other charges.

The court debated whether to impose an immediate sentence of imprisonment or a community-based sentence to allow Hapeta to participate in a rehabilitation program at Moana House. While acknowledging the benefits of such a program, the judge determined that the Parole Board was better suited to decide when Hapeta would be ready for such a release, considering his propensity for violence and the need for appropriate treatment. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with the hope that Hapeta would soon be assessed for suitability for the rehabilitation program.

Orders