R v Hemopo - [2023] NZHC 1613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-00936

[2023] NZHC 1613

THE KING

v

TAGO KEPA HEMOPO

Hearing: 14 December 2023

Counsel:

T Simmonds and K Karpik for Crown D Duffy for Defendant

Sentence:

14 December 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

R v HEMOPO [2023] NZHC 1613 [14 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Tago Hemopo, you are for sentence on two charges: conspiring to injure 22-year-old Rangiwhero Ngaronoa with intent to injure him;1 and driving whilst disqualified (third or subsequent).2 In respect of the first charge, you were found guilty after a defended jury trial. In respect of the second, you pleaded guilty on 4 August 2023, the Friday before trial.

Background

[2] At the relevant time, you were the intimate partner of Ms Jimel Burns-Wong- Tung. An issue arose between Ms Burns-Wong-Tung and Mr Ngaronoa. She took offence at reported comments by him about a young relative’s possible sexualised behaviour towards a toddler within her wider orbit of whānau and friends.

[3] Ms Burns-Wong-Tung wanted Mr Ngaronoa brought to her for retribution. She engaged others to assist her including Mr Ngaronoa’s uncles, Mr Thomas and Mr Rocky Ngapera; and her mother, Ms Kelly-Anne Burns. As trial Judge, I am satisfied based on the evidence before the jury, that Ms Burns-Wong-Tung discussed her plan with you and enlisted your support. Although the plan was probably in conception for approximately 24 hours prior to execution and the time at which you were first party to it cannot be established with accuracy, my sentencing proceeds on the basis that you were onboard with it no later than the latter part of the morning of 21 November 2021. In that context, I consider the evidence contained in Mr Robert Stevens’ police statement, dated 8 December 2021, to be reliable.3

[4] Shortly after midday on 21 November 2021, you drove Ms Burns-Wong-Tung in your family vehicle to a pre-arranged rendezvous in Myna Place, Weymouth. You

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 189(2) and 310: maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 5(1)(c) and 32(1)(a) and (4): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000; and mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver license for one year or more.
3      The relevant paragraphs provide:
4Jimel came up with a plan to have the guy brought to us so that Jimel [could] ask him about what he said, and we were going to give him a hiding.
5I can’t remember if the plan was in person or whether it was discussed on the phone but Jimel was talking to the two Black Power members and Tago. I remember hearing Jimel talking to Tago about it.

were disqualified from driving at the time. You had with you brothers Ford and Robert Stevens as passengers. You arrived at 12.32 pm. Shortly thereafter, Ms Burns arrived in her vehicle. A minute later 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 Hemopo

Details

AGLC: R v Hemopo [2023] NZHC 1613
Case: [2023] NZHC 1613
Decision Date: 14 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Tago Hemopo was sentenced for conspiring to injure 22-year-old Rangiwhero Ngaronoa with intent to injure him and driving while disqualified. Hemopo was found guilty of the first charge after a jury trial and pleaded guilty to the second charge. The court had to decide the appropriate starting point for the conspiracy charge and whether any uplift was necessary for the driving charge. The court also considered personal circumstances that could warrant a discount in the sentence.

The court adopted an orthodox approach to sentencing, setting a starting point for the conspiracy charge and considering any uplift for the driving charge. The starting point for the conspiracy charge was set at two years’ imprisonment, reflecting Hemopo's relatively limited role in the conspiracy. The court found that Hemopo's understanding was that Ngaronoa would receive a beating, not a violent assault resulting in his death. An uplift of three months was imposed for the driving charge, taking into account Hemopo’s recidivist nature and the totality of his offending. A 10 per cent discount was allowed for personal circumstances, considering Hemopo’s challenging background and familial dysfunction.

The court sentenced Hemopo to two years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy charge and three months’ imprisonment for the driving charge, to be served concurrently. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of one year and six months. The total prison term amounted to two years.

Orders