Legal Research
Cases
R v Hohua

R v Hohua

Case [2021] NZHC 1242 17 December 2021

Breach of Peace

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-087-1528

[2021] NZHC 1242

THE QUEEN

v

DALLAS HOHUA

Hearing: 17 December 2021

Appearances:

B R Smith and J Sutton for the Crown

J D Munro and J N Olsen for the Defendant

Judgment:

17 December 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MUIR J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Pollett Legal, Crown Solicitors, Tauranga J D Munro, Barrister, Auckland

R v HOHUA [2021] NZHC 1242 [17 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Dallas Hohua you appear today for sentence having been found not guilty of murder but guilty of the manslaughter of Lani Paul at Whakatāne on 23 October 2020. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. However, I can indicate at the outset that you will not be receiving a sentence of life imprisonment today, Mr Hohua. Such a sentence would not be appropriate for your offending. I will instead impose a determinate sentence, in other words, one with a fixed end date, and also consider whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

Background

[2] It is necessary first to describe the factual basis upon which I propose to sentence you today. I am required to accept as proved all facts that are essential to your guilt.1 I may also reach my own view, based on the evidence, of those facts relevant to the sentencing so long as they are consistent with the jury’s verdict.2 What follows is a combination of the Crown summary of facts, with which I essentially agree, and my own findings where required.

[3] You were charged with murder to which the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, but guilty to manslaughter. Your primary defence was self-defence. I must proceed therefore on the basis that the jury either considered you did not act in self- defence at all, or considered that your response was unreasonable in relation to the threat posed. Likewise however, I must proceed on the basis that when you stabbed the victim you neither intended to kill him nor intended to cause bodily injury known to you to carry a real risk of death.

[4]The victim was 29 year old Lani Paul. You knew one another. At about

5.00 pm on 23 October 2020, Mr Paul, his partner and several of their associates all went to your address. Many of the group had been consuming alcohol throughout the day. You arrived home a short while later having already consumed significant amounts of alcohol yourself.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).
2 Edwardson v R [2017] NZCA 618 at [105]–[107].

[5] At about 11.00 pm, Mr Paul and his partner began to argue. The argument became physical. You and your then partner, Ms Hikitea Delamare, decided to close the party down. You told everyone to get off your property, including Mr Paul and his associate known as “Stretch”.

[6] Mr Paul and his friends did not want to leave. You were determined that they do so and began pushing them…

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 Hohua

Details

AGLC: R v Hohua [2021] NZHC 1242
Case: [2021] NZHC 1242
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hohua involved a sentencing hearing for Dallas Hohua, who had been found not guilty of murder but guilty of the manslaughter of Lani Paul. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the manslaughter conviction, which carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court was required to consider various legal issues, including the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending, the appropriate starting point for sentencing, and whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court began by outlining the factual basis for the sentencing, emphasizing that it was required to accept as proved all facts essential to the defendant's guilt, while also considering any relevant facts consistent with the jury's verdict. The court identified several aggravating factors, such as the extreme level of violence, the seriousness of the injury inflicted, and the use of a weapon. The court also acknowledged some mitigating factors, such as the provocation and taunts from the victim, which, while not significantly reducing the defendant's culpability, warranted some recognition.

The court then proceeded to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing by comparing the offending to analogous cases and considering the aggravating and mitigating features. After evaluating various cases submitted by both the Crown and the defence, the court concluded that the offending fell towards the upper end of band two, with an appropriate starting point of eight years' imprisonment. The court deducted six months from this starting point due to provocation, resulting in an adjusted starting point of seven years and six months' imprisonment.

Next, the court considered the defendant's personal circumstances and the extent to which they mitigated his culpability. Factors such as the defendant's background, upbringing, and psychological profile were taken into account, leading the court to apply a discount of 20 per cent to the adjusted starting point. Finally, the court considered whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, ultimately deciding on a minimum period of three years to ensure adequate accountability, deterrence, and denunciation.

The court sentenced Dallas Hohua to six years and three months' imprisonment for manslaughter, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years. This outcome reflected the court's consideration of the legal issues, the circumstances of the offending, and the principles and purposes of sentencing.

Orders