R v Hemopo - [2014] NZHC 2950

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-091-1241 [2014] NZHC 2950

THE QUEEN

v

RUKA TE PONO HEMOPO

Counsel:
H K Goodhew for Crown

Mr Hemopo in person
V C Nisbet, Amicus Curiae

Sentence:

25 November 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Hemopo, you have been found guilty at trial of one count of attempted murder1 and another of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2

[2] In sentencing you today I will describe what you have done, the impact on your victims, your circumstances and the legal principles I must apply. Then I will consider what sentence I need to start with, based on your offending. Last, I will consider whether any considerations personal to you should make me alter the
starting sentence.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).

R v HEMOPO [2014] NZHC 2950 [25 November 2014]

What you did

[3] I start with what you did.

[4] On the evening of 2 May 2013 you, the principal victim and her sister, the second victim, had all been drinking. The victims went to sleep on a mattress in the lounge of your house in Porirua. At the time, the principal victim was 20 weeks pregnant. You went to your bedroom.

[5] Later you rose and demanded cigarettes from the two victims. When they did not supply you with cigarettes, you became angry. You forced both women onto the floor. You punched them both in the head and body with closed fists. The principal victim suffered bruising to her left shoulder and head.

[6] You then left the room and returned with a hammer. You hit the second victim with the head and claw of the hammer, delivering a number of blows to her upper body and arms. You fractured her right arm and shoulder blade and injured her spine. She also suffered a deep wound to her right arm.

[7] The principal victim pleaded with you to stop. She asked to go to the toilet. When you escorted her there, the other victim escaped and called the police.

[8] This conduct forms the basis of the wounding charge.

[9] The ordeal did not stop there. You took the principal victim to the bedroom and pushed her onto the bed. You asked her if she loved you. She said she did. You replied: “I’ve gotta do it. I’ve got to kill you and I’ve got to kill me”. You then slashed her throat with a 20 cm long serrated knife. It caused a serious cut to her neck that required 15 stitches to close. You then cut your own neck. The principal victim struggled to wrestle the knife from your hand.

[10] Fortunately, the police arrived at that point. Two officers forced the door to the bedroom open. You were kneeling over the victim. You appeared to lunge…

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 [2014] NZHC 2950
Case: [2014] NZHC 2950
Decision Date: 25 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered the sentencing of Ruka Te Pono Hemopo, who was found guilty of attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court identified the use of weapons, extreme violence, and attacks to the head as significant aggravating factors. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of mental health issues and alcohol abuse. The court determined a starting point of eight years and six months' imprisonment for the attempted murder charge and five years and six months' imprisonment for the wounding charge, to be served concurrently. After considering mitigating factors, such as the defendant's mental health issues, the court ultimately sentenced the defendant to six years and six months' imprisonment on the attempted murder charge and four years and four months' imprisonment on the wounding charge, to be served concurrently, with a maximum of six years and six months in prison. The court also ordered that the names and identifying particulars of the victims be permanently suppressed.

Orders