R v Hohua - [2017] NZHC 3169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2016-087-001867

[2017] NZHC 3169

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT ROUPERE HOHUA

Hearing: 13 December 2017

Appearances:

R Jenson for the Crown

G Tomlinson for the Defendant

Sentence:

13 December 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
A J F Perkins QC, Auckland Crown Solicitors, Tauranga
Gowing & Co Lawyers Limited, Whakatane

R v ROBERT ROUPERE HOHUA [2017] NZHC 3169 [13 December 2017]

Introduction

[1]Mr Hohua, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand at the end.

[2] You have been found guilty of murdering Ms Marie Harlick. You now appear for sentence.

[3] Before I begin with the formal sentencing process, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the members of Ms Harlick’s whānau and her friends who are here today. You have lost a dear mother, daughter, sister, friend and relative. “E nga whānau e hui nei ki roto I tēnei kooti.

Tēnā koutou.

Ka nui te aroha ki a koutou katoa. Kua paangia ki tēnei aituaa kino. Nāreira haere ngā mate.
Nau mai e te hunga ora.

To the families gathered in this court, greetings.

I have great aroha for all who have been touched by this terrible tragedy. And so farewell to the dead; and
Welcome to the living.”

Facts

[4] I must first refer to the facts of the case. I understand it will be difficult for those present to hear this yet again, but it is unfortunately unavoidable. I need to do it in my sentencing.

[5] Mr Hohua, you were in a relationship with Ms Harlick for approximately two years. You both moved to Wellington Street, Opotiki, approximately two months before Ms Harlick’s death. Ms Harlick’s 19-month-old daughter lived with you.

[6] At the time of the offending, you were bailed to a nearby address in Opotiki. This was because of your having assaulted Ms Harlick with intent to injure. Your bail conditions required you to not associate with or contact Ms Harlick. You were also subject to a curfew and residential requirements.

[7] On 22 November 2016, you were at Wellington Street with several others, including Ms Harlick. You all consumed alcohol heavily from the afternoon into the evening.

[8] Just before 7.00 pm, you realised you needed to return to your bail address to comply with your curfew conditions. You left with the other men who were at Wellington Street, and with Ms Harlick’s 19-month-old daughter. The women, including Ms Harlick, remained at Wellington Street and continued to consume alcohol.

[9] Later that night you became fixated on the idea that Ms Harlick was being unfaithful to you. You returned to Wellington Street with the 19-month-old, arriving sometime before 10.00 pm. You were angry to find the front door locked. You knocked on it, but no-one answered.

[10] You then smashed the front door pane, opened the door, and entered the house. You searched for Ms Harlick. Shortly after, she came through…

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 [2017] NZHC 3169
Case: [2017] NZHC 3169
Decision Date: 13 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Robert Roupere Hohua was convicted of the murder of Marie Harlick, and subsequently sentenced. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment before Hohua would be eligible for parole. The court examined whether the statutory presumption for a minimum term of imprisonment under section 104 of the Sentencing Act applied, considering factors such as the unlawful entry into or presence in a dwelling house and the level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness exhibited during the offence. The court found that Hohua's actions involved unlawful entry and a high degree of brutality, thereby engaging section 104. Based on the severity of the crime and relevant case law, the court determined that a minimum term of 17 years was appropriate and not manifestly unjust. Hohua was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 17 years before being eligible for parole.

Orders