R v Hiko - [2025] NZHC 105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-092-004586

[2025] NZHC 105

THE KING

v

DESMOND JUNIOR HIKO

Hearing: 11 February 2025

Counsel:

CM Fountain for Crown HPW Johnson for Defendant

Judgment:

11 February 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. HPW Johnson, Auckland.

R v HIKO [2025] NZHC 105 [11 February 2025]

Introduction

[1] Desmond Hiko, you are for sentence on two charges of unlawfully getting into a car,1 and much more seriously, two of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.2

Background

[2] Your offending forms part of intergang hostility between the Tribesmen and Killer Beez gangs. In May and June of 2022, no fewer than 20 shooting incidents and nine of arson occurred between the two gangs.

[3]Your offending occurred 24 May 2022.

[4] At approximately 6.50 pm, you and three others drove to the home of a member of the Tribesmen in Flat Bush. Your group had at least three firearms: a 20-gauge shotgun, a 12-gauge shotgun, and a third unspecified firearm. Your group fired at least eight shots toward the home. A car in the driveway was hit, as was the home itself. Those in the home returned fire resulting in bullet damage to nearby properties and cars.

[5] You and the others fled in a car specifically stolen for the purpose. You abandoned that car, then got into another which was waiting for you at an arranged meeting point. You and your group drove away at speed.

[6] Later the same night, at approximately 11.18, you and two others went to a home in Henderson in a second stolen car. Your group was armed with at least two firearms. As with the first home, you went to the second believing it to be occupied by a member of the Tribesmen gang. However, that occupant was not living there. His partner was, with her young children.

[7] Your group drove down the driveway to the home, then revved the car’s engine. The female occupant approached the bedroom window in response. When she did,

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2); maximum penalty, two years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act, s 198(2); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.

your group fired repeatedly toward the home. At least four shots were fired. One entered the window, narrowly missing her head. Another hit the window frame. As with the first shooting, your group then drove away at speed.

[8]You declined to make a statement to Police.

[9] In recorded prison calls, you referred to being with your co-defendants in connection with the shootings but said you “didn’t wanna ride”. In relation to the first shooting, you said:

I went over there. They were all having a hui outside his house and then boom we just pulled out all the guns and went pop, pop, pop.

[10]In relation to the second shooting, you said you were “part of that one”.

Aggravating factors

[11] At least…

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 Hiko

Details

AGLC: R v Hiko [2025] NZHC 105
Case: [2025] NZHC 105
Decision Date: 11 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Desmond Junior Hiko appeared before Downs J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, where he faced sentencing for two charges of unlawfully getting into a car and two charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The charges stemmed from incidents of intergang hostility between the Tribesmen and Killer Beez gangs, where Hiko participated in shootings targeting homes believed to be associated with the opposing gang.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the calculation of an appropriate starting point for sentencing, the application of a discount for Hiko's guilty plea, consideration of mitigating factors such as his deprived upbringing and rehabilitative efforts, and the impact of aggravating factors such as his prior convictions and the premeditated nature of the offending. The court also had to decide whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court's reasoning involved setting a six-year starting point for the lead offence, with an additional 18 months for the first shooting offence. A 15% discount was applied for Hiko's guilty plea, and a further 15% discount was made for his deprived background and the prospect of rehabilitation, reducing the starting point to 50 months. However, a five-month uplift was added for prior convictions and the fact that Hiko committed the offences while on bail, resulting in a final sentence of 55 months imprisonment, or four years and seven months. Downs J opted not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment due to Hiko's age.

The final orders of the court were that Hiko would serve four years and seven months in prison for the reckless discharge of firearms offences, and an additional 12 months for the other charges, with all sentences running concurrently.

Orders