INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANT A IS TO CONTINUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH S 286 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE
CRI-2023-042-001974 CRI-2023-042-001869
[2024] NZHC 3197
THE KING
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
v
ARANA TAMITI HURIWAKA
CRI-2023-042-001974
THE KING
v
A
Hearing:
31 October 2024
Counsel:
J M Webber for Crown
J D Lucas for Defendant Huriwaka M J Vesty for Defendant A
Sentence:
31 October 2024
SENTENCING NOTES OF LA HOOD J
R v HURIWAKA [2024] NZHC 3197 [31 October 2024]
[1] Arana Huriwaka, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter,1 and three charges of breaching home detention.2
[2] You are also to be sentenced on various driving offences for which you were sentenced to seven months’ home detention, on the basis you immediately breached that sentence and went on to commit the manslaughter offending.
[3] Ms A, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to supplying methamphetamine,3 two charges of offering to supply methamphetamine,4 possession of cannabis,5 and one charge of accessory after the fact to manslaughter.6
[4] In sentencing each of you today, the main purposes of sentencing are to hold each of you accountable for the harm you have caused; to promote a sense of responsibility for that harm; to denounce and deter your conduct; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.7 I must consider the gravity of your offending and the degree of your culpability. Your sentences must be consistent with sentences imposed in other reasonably similar cases,8 and I should impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.9
[5]In sentencing you I will:10
(a)Start by describing the facts of your offending generally.
(b)I will then set out a starting point based on the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending. The objective there is to adopt a
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160, 171 and 177; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 80S; maximum penalty one year imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
3 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
4 Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $500 fine.
6 Crimes Act, ss 171, 71, and 312; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
starting point which reflects the culpability, or seriousness, inherent in the offending.
(c)Finally, I will consider your personal circumstances and apply uplifts or reductions to the starting point based on them. This will bring me to a final sentence for each of you.
Impact on victim’s whānau and friends
[6] However, I want to start by acknowledging the victims in this…
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 Huriwaka
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Huriwaka [2024] NZHC 3197
Case
[2024] NZHC 3197
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of New Zealand, Arana Huriwaka and Ms A were sentenced for various charges, including manslaughter, breach of home detention, and drug-related offences. The primary legal issues involved determining appropriate starting points for each defendant's sentences, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on the most suitable sentence, including whether imprisonment or a non-custodial sentence was warranted. For Huriwaka, the court considered the aggravating factors of using a weapon, premeditation, and the gang context, leading to a starting point of nine years for the manslaughter charge. Additional uplifts were applied for breaching home detention and previous convictions, resulting in a final sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years. For Ms A, the starting point for the methamphetamine charges was two years, with an additional uplift for her role as an accessory after the fact. Despite the seriousness of her offending, the court opted for a sentence of two years' intensive supervision with residential treatment and counselling, given her rehabilitative needs and the potential harm of imprisonment to her child. The court also declined Ms A's application for name suppression, finding that neither the threshold for extreme hardship nor endangerment of safety was met.
The final orders were that Huriwaka was sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years, while Ms A received two years' intensive supervision with residential treatment and counselling as special conditions. An interim order for name suppression for Ms A was also made, pending any appeal.