R v Hapuku - [2012] NZHC 1314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2011-020-0182 [2012] NZHC 1314

THE QUEEN

v

TRENT OWEN NGARUHE HAPUKU

Hearing: 11 June 2012

Counsel: S B Manning and K Laurenson for Crown
E J Forster and R B Philip for Prisoner

Sentencing: 11 June 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF MILLER J

[1] Mr Hapuku, you appear for sentence for the manslaughter, on 11 January

2011, of Mikara Reti. You were found guilty at your second trial, which concluded on 2 May.

The facts

[2] You were the boyfriend of Mikara’s mother Jamie Reti, and you were in the habit of spending a good deal of time with her in the sleepout which she occupied at her family home. You seemed not to make any constructive use of your time; the evidence indicates that you spent much of it playing video games on an X-box in the
sleepout, and you associated very little with Jamie’s family.

R V HAPUKU HC NAP CRI-2011-020-0182 [11 June 2012]

[3] Mikara was five months old at the time of his death. There is nothing to indicate that you had previously done violence to him. The evidence did show that he did have fractured ribs from an injury suffered some time earlier, but the Crown did not seek to prove that it was you who inflicted that injury, and I sentence you on the basis that you did not.

[4] On the day of Mikara’s death he was a little unwell, and hence unsettled. At about dinner time Jamie left him in the sleepout with you while she went to have dinner and bath her older child. At that time you were playing a video game called Scarface, and you were trying to “clock” it, meaning to score the maximum available points. You had been doing so for some time.

[5] While Jamie was absent you hit Mikara. Precisely what form that blow took we do not know. It may have been a punch or a kick. What we do know is that it was a very heavy blow from the front and his liver took the full brunt of it. It is a reasonable inference that you lost your temper when he distracted you from the game that you were playing. I will draw that inference, which is favourable to you because it leads to the conclusion that you struck out once, in a moment of anger. Still, you should count yourself very fortunate indeed that you were not charged with murder.

[6] At about 6.30 pm a family living nearby, the Hutleys, heard the scream of a baby in great pain. It was sufficiently disturbing to cause them to patrol their section, trying to make out where the noise had come from. The experts agree that the injury to Mikara’s liver would have been excruciatingly painful.

[7] When Jamie returned to the sleepout some time after 7.30 pm she found you holding the baby, trying to comfort him. She immediately saw that something was…

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 Hapuku

Details

AGLC: R v Hapuku [2012] NZHC 1314
Case: [2012] NZHC 1314
Decision Date: 11 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trent Owen Ngaruhe Hapuku was sentenced for the manslaughter of Mikara Reti, his five-month-old step-son. Hapuku had been found guilty at his second trial, after the first ended in a hung jury. The incident occurred when Hapuku, who was playing a video game, lost his temper and struck Mikara, causing fatal injuries. The court heard that Hapuku had a limited criminal history but had exhibited a propensity for violence on several occasions. The sentencing judge, Miller J, considered various factors, including the impact on the victim's family, Hapuku's personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter.

The legal issues before the court were to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, and Hapuku's background and culpability. The judge also had to consider whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, which would delay Hapuku's eligibility for parole. The court considered precedents involving similar offences, including instances where children had died due to a single loss of control by an adult.

Miller J concluded that Hapuku's actions, although a single blow, were a serious breach of trust and caused significant harm to a defenceless child. The judge adopted a starting point of nine years imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence. While Hapuku had shown some cooperation with the victim's mother in seeking medical help, he had not taken any independent action to assist the baby and continued to deny responsibility. The judge decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, trusting that Hapuku would benefit from rehabilitation and that his readiness for release would be appropriately assessed by the Parole Board.

In conclusion, Hapuku was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for manslaughter. The court emphasised the importance of acknowledging responsibility and undergoing rehabilitation to address his violent tendencies and drug use. The decision underscored the court's commitment to protecting children and ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions.

Orders