R v Hona - [2014] NZHC 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-019-8066 [2014] NZHC 12

THE QUEEN

v

RICKY JOHN HONA

Hearing: 20 January 2014

Counsel: T V Clark for the Crown
M Sturm for the Prisoner

Sentence: 20 January 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BROWN J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel: M Sturm, Hamilton

R v HONA [2014] NZHC 12 [20 January 2014]

[1] Mr Hona you can remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty on Friday 15 November

2013 in Hamilton to two charges: one for kidnapping and one for injuring with intent to injure. The first of those (kidnapping) carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and the second (injuring with intent) carries a maximum of five years imprisonment.

[3] You had sought a sentencing indication through your counsel and on

14 November 2013, following an oral hearing, I gave you an indication with the standard duration of five working days to apply for the acceptance of that indication. You entered your guilty plea while that indication was still open to you.

Background facts

[4] The background is reasonably straight forward. On Friday 14 December

2012, mid-evening (12.30 pm), you were travelling in a vehicle with two other accused. A dispute had earlier arisen between the complainant and one of your co- accused in respect of a car which your co-accused believed that the complainant had stolen and sold to a wrecking yard.

[5] The three of you saw the complainant in Huntly. At first he hid and after you failed to locate him at a caravan park you then left but later saw him hiding in a bush. The three of you stopped the vehicle and began chasing the complainant. He was caught, placed inside the vehicle and once there all three of you began punching and kicking him before another of the accused drove the vehicle away.

[6] You took the complainant to a picnic area near the Huntly Power Station where he was pulled from the vehicle and you and the other accused began punching, kicking and stomping him. One of the other accused then removed a chainsaw from the vehicle and gave it to yet another accused who ran it in close proximity to the complainant. The three of you then left after an attack that was estimated to have lasted about one hour.

[7] As a result of the attack the complainant suffered multiple contusions to the face and body, a cut to the bridge of his nose and bruising to eyes, upper lip and sore legs, chest and back. I have today had read to me by Ms Clark a Victim Impact Statement of the complainant which verifies those injuries and his feelings as a result of them.

[8] You have seven previous convictions. Six are for driving offences, one for the possession of cannabis. I do not consider any of them to be relevant to your current offending.

Sentencing indication: principles and…

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 Hona

Details

AGLC: R v Hona [2014] NZHC 12
Case: [2014] NZHC 12
Decision Date: 20 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hona, the defendant, Ricky John Hona, appeared in the High Court of New Zealand at Hamilton, where he had pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and injuring with intent. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences and balanced the principles of accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court considered the aggravating factors of multiple attackers, the targeting of the victim's head, and the premeditated nature of the attack, as well as mitigating factors such as Hona's age, prospects for rehabilitation, and the fact that he had not been the primary aggressor. The court also took into account the potential impact of the sentence on Hona's employment and family responsibilities. Following careful consideration of the submissions from both counsel and the pre-sentence report, the court decided to impose a combination of community detention, supervision, and community work, with specific conditions aimed at addressing Hona's rehabilitation needs and reducing the risk of reoffending. The sentence included a prohibition on alcohol and drug consumption, reflecting concerns about Hona's past alcohol-related convictions and the recent incident of disorderly conduct while on bail. The court emphasized the importance of Hona taking this opportunity for rehabilitation seriously and warned against any future reoffending.

Orders