R v Hereora - [2016] NZHC 1870

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-092-9467 [2016] NZHC 1870

THE QUEEN

v

ABRAHAM HEREORA

Hearing: 12 August 2016

Appearances:

J J Rhodes for Crown
P LeʼAuʼanae for Defendant

Sentence:

12 August 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v HEREORA [2016] NZHC 1870 [12 August 2016]

[1] Mr Hereora, you have pleaded guilty to charges of arson, aggravated burglary (x 2), sexual violation by rape and indecent assault. The Crown has offered no evidence on the charges of assaulting a female and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. I now discharge you on those charges under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[2] Your guilty pleas came after I provided you with a sentence indication on

7 July 2016.1 In the sentence indication I traversed the facts underlying your offending fully, and I do not propose to repeat those facts here. My sentence indication will be attached to and form part of these notes.

[3] When I provided you with the sentence indication, I had a summary of facts that was agreed for the purposes of the indication hearing. I also had the benefit of reading victim impact statements. I record that none of the victims has chosen to attend your sentencing today.

[4] The only new information provided to me in respect of your offending is that the cost of repairing the damage caused by the events underpinning the arson charge was approximately $5,000. Given your current circumstances the Crown does not seek an order that you be required to pay reparation in respect of that damage.

[5] At the sentence indication hearing, I took a combined starting point in respect of all of your offending of 19 years imprisonment. I then applied discounts to reflect your previous good character, underlying mental health issues and guilty pleas. This led me to an end sentence of 14 years six months imprisonment.

[6] I have now received a pre-sentence report and I need to consider whether I should alter the end sentence to reflect matters contained in the pre-sentence report. Unfortunately, however, the pre-sentence report is largely negative. It describes you as having little recollection of, and little insight into, your offending. You told the officer who prepared the pre-sentence report that you “sort of recalled doing it” and
that in relation to the sexual offending you were not in control “down to drug use”.

1 R v Hereora [2016] NZHC 1532.

[7] Today, Mr Le’au’anae has said that the attitude you displayed to the person who prepared the pre-sentence report is likely to be due to lack of recall and your inability to communicate. He says that this is symptomatic of his dealings with you. He also tells me that, until very recently, you have been unable to tell your family about the offending and even now they have very little knowledge of it.

[8] You present as something of a mystery because up until present offending you had led a virtually blameless life.…

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 Hereora

Details

AGLC: R v Hereora [2016] NZHC 1870
Case: [2016] NZHC 1870
Decision Date: 12 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Abraham Hereora pleaded guilty to charges of arson, aggravated burglary, sexual violation by rape, and indecent assault. The Crown offered no evidence on charges of assaulting a female and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The court discharged Hereora on these charges under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court took a starting point of 19 years imprisonment and applied discounts for Hereora's previous good character, underlying mental health issues, and guilty pleas, resulting in an end sentence of 14 years six months imprisonment. The court did not propose to impose a minimum term of imprisonment. Hereora was sentenced to 14 years six months imprisonment on the lead charge of rape, with concurrent sentences of two years imprisonment on the charges of aggravated burglary and indecent assault, and two and a half years imprisonment on the charge of arson. All sentences were to be served concurrently, meaning Hereora would serve an effective term of 14 years six months imprisonment. The court did not alter the end sentence after considering the pre-sentence report, which described Hereora as having little recollection of, and little insight into, his offending. The court acknowledged Hereora's regular use of cannabis likely played a large part in his offending, and it was important that he and the prison authorities take steps to deal with that issue while he was in prison.

Orders