R v Hira - [2009] NZCA 144

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA402/2008
CA431/2008
[2009] NZCA 144
THE QUEEN
v
RONALD DEAN HIRA
BWANA NEHU MCKINNON
Hearing:24 February 2009

Court:William Young P, Chisholm and Heath JJ
Counsel:P S Coles for Mr Hira

T C Thackery for Mr McKinnon
S J Mount for Crown

Judgment:23 April 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by William Young P)
Introduction
[1]       In the early hours of 2 October 2006, seven shots were fired from a rifle into the Palmerston North home of home of Victor “Troy” Lafaiki. His girlfriend, Latoya Boyd, was wounded. Sometime later seven shots were fired from the same rifle into the home of Mr Albert Tuimana. No one was harmed despite Mr Tuimana, his partner and two young children being asleep in the house at the time. The Crown case was that the men responsible for these incidents included the two appellants, Bwana Nehu McKinnon and Ronald Dean Hira.
[2]       Both men had, according to the Crown, spent much of the night of 1 and 2 October 2006 in the company of Cheryl Taylor (who was Mr McKinnon’s former girl friend) and her friend Jamie Roundtree. In the aftermath of the shootings, Messrs McKinnon and Hira and Ms Taylor and Ms Roundtree left Palmerston North and went to live in Pahiatua. On 13 October 2006, the firearm used in the shootings was discovered in the house in which they were staying.
[3]       Following a trial before Judge Dawson and a jury in the District Court at Palmerston North at which Ms Taylor and Ms Roundtree gave evidence and their out of court statements were before the jury, both men were found guilty of wounding Ms Boyd with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and (in relation to the second incident) discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for safety. For this offending along with a charge associated with possession of the rifle at Pahiatua, Mr McKinnon was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for 11 years. Mr Hira, who had already served a short sentence of imprisonment for possession of the rifle, was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years and three months. In both cases the Judge imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of half the nominal sentence.
[4]       They now appeal against conviction and Mr Hira also appeals against sentence.
[5]       We propose to discuss the case under the following headings:
(a)Factual background.
(b)Complaints about the way the Judge dealt with the statements of Ms Taylor and Ms Roundtree.
(c)Was it reasonably open to the jury to conclude that the appellants were involved in the two shootings?
(d)The wounding count.
(e)The directions as to parties.
(f)The sentence appeal by Mr Hira.

Factual background
[6] There had been a history of bad blood between Mr McKinnon and Messrs Lafaiki and Tuimana. Messrs Lafaiki and Tuimana are friends. The underlying disputes between Mr McKinnon and Messrs Lafaiki…

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 Hira

Details

AGLC: R v Hira [2009] NZCA 144
Case: [2009] NZCA 144
Decision Date: 23 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought against the conviction and sentence of two individuals, Bwana Nehu McKinnon and Ronald Dean Hira, who were found guilty of various charges related to shootings in Palmerston North. McKinnon and Hira were found guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for safety. McKinnon was sentenced to eleven years in prison, while Hira received a sentence of nine years and three months, with both sentences having a minimum period of imprisonment of half the nominal sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence. The primary issues considered by the Court were the admissibility and weight of the statements given by two witnesses, Cheryl Taylor and Jamie Roundtree, the sufficiency of evidence to conclude that McKinnon and Hira were involved in the shootings, the wounding count, the directions given to the jury regarding parties to a crime, and the sentence appeal by Hira. The Court found that the Judge's handling of the witnesses' statements was appropriate and did not prejudice the appellants. Furthermore, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that McKinnon and Hira were involved in the shootings. The Court also found that the jury's choice of the more serious wounding count was open to them, and the Judge's directions on parties to a crime, while not in accordance with best practice, did not prejudice the appellants in this case. Finally, the Court decided not to interfere with the sentence imposed on Hira, considering that his culpability was only slightly less than McKinnon's, and the deduction allowed by the Judge for the firearms offence adequately addressed this difference.

Orders