Legal Research
Cases
R v Houma

R v Houma

Case [2008] NZCA 512 1 December 2008

Breach of Trust

Mens Rea & Intention

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Jurisdiction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA235/2008
[2008] NZCA 512
THE QUEEN
v
DANIEL HOUMA
Hearing:16 October 2008

Court:Arnold, Randerson and Hugh Williams JJ
Counsel:M A Edgar for Appellant

M A Woolford for Crown

Judgment:1 December 2008 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A. The appeal against conviction was abandoned and is dismissed.
B.The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent of substituting a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years in lieu of the 16 years imposed on the appellant’s conviction for murder.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Given by Hugh Williams J)
Introduction
[1]        At the conclusion of a jury trial the appellant, Mr Houma, was convicted on charges of murdering a Mr Martin on 2 April 2006, and of injuring a Mr Little on the same day with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. His co-accused on the murder charge, Messrs Kulitapa, Lanivia and a further accused, a youth, were convicted or pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Messrs Kulitapa and Lanivia were also convicted on the injuring charge.
[2]        On 2 April 2008 the trial Judge, Courtney J, sentenced Mr Houma to life imprisonment for the murder with a minimum period of imprisonment of 16 years and a concurrent sentence of six years nine months on the injuring charge.
[3]        He has now appealed to this Court against sentence, effectively against the length of the minimum period imposed on the overall ground it is manifestly excessive.
[4]        Initially Mr Houma also appealed against his convictions but Counsel advised well before the fixture that that aspect of the appeal would not be pursued. It is formally dismissed.
Facts
[5]        The facts may be sufficiently taken from the sentencing Judge’s summary:
[2]       This conviction arose from two incidents in the early hours of 2 April 2006. You had spent several hours drinking in and around the Glen Innes area and going to parties in that area. Sometime around 1 am you and other young people congregated in the Maybury Reserve near the Glen Innes shopping centre. Thomas Martin, a local man who had worked that afternoon at the liquor store and spent the night with friends in the area was walking home through the Maybury Reserve. As he entered the reserve there was an exchange between one of your group, Mr Kulitapa, and you and Mr Martin. Although there was no dispute between the three of you within moments Mr Kulitapa had punched Mr Martin to the ground. It is obvious from the evidence that this punch took Mr Martin completely by surprise and knocked him unconscious. Mr Martin was then set upon and kicked several times in the head and body by you and your co-offenders Mr Kulitapa and Mr Lanivia. I was satisfied from the evidence that you, Mr Houma, kicked Mr Martin in the head more than once. At some stage following this assault Mr Martin regained consciousness and tried to stand up. The evidence, which I accept, was that you gave Mr Martin…

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 Houma

Details

AGLC: R v Houma [2008] NZCA 512
Case: [2008] NZCA 512
Decision Date: 1 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Houma, the appellant, Mr Houma, was convicted of murdering Mr Martin on 2 April 2006 and of injuring Mr Little with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on the same day. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge, Courtney J, who sentenced Mr Houma to life imprisonment for the murder charge with a minimum period of imprisonment of 16 years and a concurrent sentence of six years nine months on the injuring charge. Mr Houma's appeal against the length of the minimum period imposed was that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal against the conviction was abandoned and dismissed.

The court was required to decide whether the 16 year minimum term imposed was excessive and whether there was any disparity between the sentences imposed on Mr Houma and his co-offenders. The court found that Mr Houma's participation in the attack on Mr Martin was the most culpable aspect of the assault, and justified the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment well in excess of the statutory 10 year minimum. However, the court found that while the Judge's approach in increasing the minimum term was supported by authority, there was inconsistency in omitting to apply an uplift to the sentence imposed on co-offenders who received concurrent sentences for the same offending.

The court concluded that a minimum period of 15 years imprisonment would have been appropriate, taking into account the totality of the offending, and reflecting in part the concern about the perception of disparity with the co-offenders' sentences arising from the uplift on Mr Houma's sentence. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent of substituting a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years in lieu of the 16 years imposed on the appellant's conviction for murder.

Final orders: The appeal against conviction was abandoned and dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent of substituting a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years in lieu of the 16 years imposed on the appellant's conviction for murder.

Orders