R v Heke - [2018] NZHC 3168

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-063-003068

[2018] NZHC 3168

THE QUEEN

v

ROLLIE JAMES HEKE

Hearing: 4 December 2018

Counsel:

R Douch for Crown

W Lawson for Defendant

Judgment:

4 December 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Almao Douch, Hamilton
Lance Lawson, Rotorua South

R v HEKE [2018] NZHC 3168 [4 December 2018]

[1] Mr Heke, you appear for sentence on one representative charge of using a firearm against law enforcement officers. The maximum sentence for that charge is 14 years.

The facts

[2] Mr Heke, you were seen driving at speed by a police officer. The police officer signalled for you to stop. You failed to do so. The officer pursued you. You drove erratically for a period but ultimately pulled over to the side of the road. The officer also stopped his vehicle about 70 metres from your car. You stepped out of the car with a military-style semi-automatic rifle. The officer put his car into reverse, but you began firing the weapon at him. A bullet struck the officer’s vehicle. It entered the interior of the vehicle. Two other police officers then arrived at the scene. Their vehicle stopped about 20 metres in front of your vehicle. They immediately came under fire and returned fire. They abandoned their vehicle, while still under fire. Seven rounds struck the patrol car, with two of the bullets entering the interior.

The methamphetamine offending and bail breach

[3] At the time of the offending, you were supposed to be on EM bail pending trial on charges for methamphetamine importation. However, you cut your EM bracelet and absconded. You had avoided arrest for some time prior to the present events unfolding.

Sentence on methamphetamine offending

[4] You were sentenced on the methamphetamine offending on 8 September 2017 to five years, five months imprisonment. The sentencing notes record you were a serving prisoner at the time of the offending. No consideration was given to the present offending at the time of that sentencing.

Personal circumstances

[5] I turn now to your personal circumstances. Mr Heke, you did not complete an interview with a PAC report writer; instead, information as to your personal

circumstances comes from a report produced by Tane Cook of WERA Consultants Limited.

[6] You are aged 38. You have two children, aged 13 and 1, as well as several adult whāngai children. You had a “turbulent upbringing”. Your father was a member of the Black Power gang, you moved about a lot, and you were exposed to domestic violence from a young age. Your mother left your father when you were seven, and you went with her to Greymouth for a time. Your father’s attempt at reconciling with your mother failed, and so you moved between your parents over the next few years.

[7]…

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 Heke

Details

AGLC: R v Heke [2018] NZHC 3168
Case: [2018] NZHC 3168
Decision Date: 4 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Rollie James Heke, was sentenced for using a firearm against law enforcement officers, with the maximum penalty for the offence being 14 years. Heke was seen speeding by a police officer, who signalled for him to stop. Heke failed to comply, leading to a chase. Heke eventually pulled over, exited his car with a military-style semi-automatic rifle, and fired at the police officer, striking the officer's vehicle. Two other police officers arrived at the scene and came under fire, returning fire and abandoning their vehicle. Seven bullets struck the patrol car, with two bullets entering the interior.

The issues before the court were to determine an appropriate starting point and sentence for Heke's actions, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case. The court found a starting point of 12 years and six months to be appropriate, taking into account the high risk of lethal harm, the possession of a high-powered weapon, the multiple shots fired, and Heke's attempt to avoid police arrest. An uplift of nine months was added for personal aggravating factors, resulting in a combined starting point of 13 years and three months. The court discounted the starting point by 10 per cent for personal mitigating factors, bringing the start point to 11 years and 11 months. A 25 per cent discount for guilty plea resulted in a sentence of eight years and 11 months. A cumulative sentence of six years and 11 months was deemed appropriate, to be served with the existing sentence of five years and five months, resulting in a total sentence of 12 years and four months.

The court sentenced Heke to six years and eleven months’ imprisonment on the representative charge of using a firearm against law enforcement officers. The sentence must be served cumulatively with his existing sentence of five years and five months, resulting in a total sentence of 12 years and four months. A minimum non-parole period of 50 per cent was imposed, equating to roughly three years and five months. The court also made a permanent order for suppression of the victims of the offending, namely, the police officers. The Crown withdrew all charges relating to this episode of offending, except the present charge.

Orders