R v Hemana - [2024] NZHC 2492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2022-042-1430

[2024] NZHC 2492

THE KING

v

DYLAN GLEN HEMANA

Hearing: 30 August 2024

Counsel:

J M Webber for Crown J Seton for Defendant

Sentencing:

30 August 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

Introduction

[1] Mr Hemana, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to charges of:

(a)kidnapping.1 I note the kidnapping charge is one that encompasses what were previously three kidnapping charges relating to three victims;

(b)wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2 The facts of what was previously a threatening to kill charge are within this charge;

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 209(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v HEMANA [Sentencing Remarks] [2024] NZHC 2492 [30 August 2024]

(c)possession of methamphetamine for supply3; and

(d)corruptly offering a bribe.4

[2] You accepted a sentence indication from Justice Isac on 19 April 2024. Your convictions were not entered at the time you pleaded guilty. They do need to be entered today, and will be.

[3] Justice Isac indicated a starting point of 13 years for all of the offending. That was made up of a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment for the most serious charges of wounding and kidnapping; and with two years added on for the rest of the offending. Justice Isac also indicated an additional two months to reflect your previous convictions, and there would be a reduction of 25 per cent for a guilty pleas.

[4] Four other co-offenders were involved with you in this offending. I sentenced them all in July. I granted you an adjournment of sentencing so that you could obtain a report under s 27 of the Sentencing Act.

[5] It is usual for the Judge who gives the sentence indication to carry on to do the sentencing. That is not inevitable though. Justice Isac’s indication is not binding on me, but I am conducting the sentencing on the basis that I agree with the sentence that Justice Isac indicated and so I am not departing from his starting point or the other matters that he indicated.

[6] What I need to decide today is the question of additional reductions to reflect your personal circumstances, and what level is available to you. That is in dispute here. The Crown says that it should be no more than a 10 per cent reduction, but Mr Seton says it should be at a level of 25 per cent. The other matter I need to decide is whether or not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment that is longer than the ordinary non-parole period.

3 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2), maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4 Crimes Act 1961, s 104, maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

[7] First, I need to describe the offending which I have taken from the agreed summary of facts that was the basis of 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 Hemana

Details

AGLC: R v Hemana [2024] NZHC 2492
Case: [2024] NZHC 2492
Decision Date: 30 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, the case of R v Hemana was heard for sentencing on August 30, 2024. Mr. Hemana had pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and corruptly offering a bribe. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, including any reductions for personal circumstances and whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. The court began by reviewing the details of the offending, which involved Hemana and his associates from the Head Hunters gang seeking the return of a significant quantity of stolen methamphetamine from a Nelson-based dealer. This led to the kidnapping and severe assault of the dealer and his family members in an attempt to extract information about the missing drugs.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the serious physical injuries inflicted on the primary victim, the use of weapons, the extreme level of violence, the gang-related nature of the offending, and the prolonged detention of the victims. The court also considered the personal circumstances of Hemana, including his background of exposure to violence and trauma, substance abuse, and gang membership. The court heard from various reports and victim impact statements, although the latter were not provided. The court decided on a reduction of 15% for personal factors, reflecting Hemana's challenging background and some steps towards rehabilitation, but not to the extent sought by the defence. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50% of the total sentence, considering the seriousness of the offending and the need for accountability, denunciation, and deterrence.

The final sentence imposed was eight years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of four years before parole eligibility. The court also remitted Hemana's outstanding fines and costs.

Orders