R v Huata - [2012] NZHC 2735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2011-082-000382 [2012] NZHC 2735

THE QUEEN

v

THOMAS JOHN HUATA
JAMES MAXWELL NGARI HUATA

Counsel: S B Manning for Crown
J S Jefferson for Prisoner Thomas Huata
M J Phelps for Prisoner James Huata

Sentence: 18 October 2012 (at Napier)

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Thomas Huata, you are to be sentenced on four charges arising from the wounding of Paul Kahukura on 29 October 2010 and your subsequent attempt to avoid responsibility for that incident. You pleaded guilty on the first day of your trial to charges of theft of a car, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, arson and attempting to dissuade a witness.

[2] James Huata, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty at the same time to the two principal charges, that is less the theft and arson counts.

[3] In sentencing you, I will follow the following process. I will first identify a starting point, which is the period of imprisonment that reflects the seriousness of

R V HUATA HC GIS CRI-2011-082-000382 [18 October 2012]

your offending generally. In setting that starting point I will be treating you both as equally culpable. While it was you, James, who pulled the trigger, Thomas, you were fully involved in the offending and were solely responsible for the theft and arson.

[4] I will conclude by explaining why I have decided in this case not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

Your offending

[5] Your offending was a classic case of gang retaliation. Wairoa has a very unfortunate history of such shootings. You are both members of the Black Power gang. On 26 September 2010, a Black Power member, Judas Rarere, was shot outside the Mongrel Mob headquarters in Wairoa. On the afternoon and evening of
29 October 2010, you both went out with the express purpose of avenging that incident.

[6] Thomas, in the early afternoon, you went to a friend’s house in Napier. Another friend was there. You were angry that this other person had left you stranded at a rural address earlier in the day, and you demanded his car. You then took it. He was scared of you and thought you would assault him if he did not give you his car.

[7] Shortly afterwards, you went to pick up James, and another Black Power associate. The three of you then drove to Wairoa with the goal of finding and shooting a Mongrel Mob member. Any member. It didn’t matter. You didn’t care. You had a sawn-off shotgun for that purpose.

[8] You arrived at the Mobil Service Station at Bridge Street, Wairoa, at about

6.30pm. You saw the victim, Paul Kahukura, filling his vehicle before getting back into the driver’s seat. He was wearing a Mongrel Mob patch, so therefore he was an acceptable target – even though his wife and 13 year-old son were with him. His son went inside to pay for the petrol. You then…

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 Huata

Details

AGLC: R v Huata [2012] NZHC 2735
Case: [2012] NZHC 2735
Decision Date: 18 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Huata, the defendants, Thomas John Huata and James Maxwell Ngari Huata, were sentenced following their guilty pleas to charges related to an incident on 29 October 2010. The defendants were found guilty of theft of a car, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, arson, and attempting to dissuade a witness. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Gisborne. The primary legal issues involved determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, adjusting for personal factors and the discount for guilty pleas, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court first identified an 11-year imprisonment starting point, reflecting the seriousness of the shooting, which involved a weapon, extreme violence, premeditation, and occurred in the context of gang warfare. The court also considered the additional charge of attempting to dissuade a witness, for which it added two years to the starting point, resulting in a total of 13 years and three months. The court provided a discount for the guilty pleas of nine months, resulting in a final sentence of 12 years and three months for both defendants. The court decided not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment due to the defendants' young age and potential for rehabilitation.

In conclusion, Thomas John Huata and James Maxwell Ngari Huata were sentenced to 12 years and three months of imprisonment for the charges of wounding with intent to injure and dissuading a witness, with James also receiving concurrent sentences of two years for the remaining charges. The court's reasoning focused on the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection while considering the defendants' age and potential for rehabilitation.

Orders