R v Kaka - [2013] NZHC 2151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

THE QUEEN
v

JAEDYN TENGA KAKA

Charge: Kidnapping

Plea: Guilty

Appearances: R L Mann for Crown

J S Gurnick for Prisoner

Sentenced: 23 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Copy to: J S Gurnick, Hamilton

R v KAKA [2013] NZHC 2151 [23 August 2013]

Jaedyn Tenga Kaka, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
The victim was a 32 year old female living in Auckland. Early one morning in April last year she received a phone call from a friend inviting her for breakfast. The friend told her she would be collected by the friend’s boyfriend, a Mr Martin. Mr Martin, the victim’s female friend and a third male, unknown to the victim, collected her. She was told to get into the back seat of the car. Her glasses were taken off her and she was blindfolded. Her purse was taken off her. She was then taken to the address of another one of your co-accused, Ms Budd in Hamilton. You had stayed overnight at that address. You are related to Ms Budd.
The victim was taken to a garage area while still blindfolded. She was tied up with a skipping rope securing her arms, legs and neck. She was told she was being abducted for a $30,000 ransom. The victim was threatened by your co-accused Mr Martin and Ms Budd, as well as by the other unknown male. A knife was held against her throat.
During the time the victim was confined Mr Martin, Ms Budd and you also acted as her guard. After several hours of confinement the victim was able to break free and escape through a small window in the garage. She scaled a rear fence and made it to a neighbouring property.
The neighbour saw the victim, crouched beside the house in a collapsed state asking for help. The victim had bruising and abrasions to her neck, wrists and ankles as a result of being bound.
When you were spoken to you admitted you were aware the victim had been kidnapped but said you took no active part in relation to it. You admitted that you knew she had been kidnapped because after she had arrived at the address she was tied up, wrapped in a blanket and punched in the face. You related how she was taken to the back room where she was detained. You also accepted you went in there at that time. You admitted you were asked for some rope but said it was the others

who had tied her up. You accepted you were told to sit with her to make sure she didn’t get away. You suggested you wanted to release her but were frightened to do so.

In sentencing you I am required to have regard to the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002. In this case it is necessary…

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 Kaka

Details

AGLC: R v Kaka [2013] NZHC 2151
Case: [2013] NZHC 2151
Decision Date: 23 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, the case of R v Kaka was heard by Justice Venning. The defendant, Jaedyn Tenga Kaka, was charged with kidnapping and pleaded guilty to the offence. The case involved a 32-year-old female victim who was kidnapped by a group, including the defendant, for a ransom of $30,000. The victim was held in a garage, blindfolded and tied up with a skipping rope. After several hours, she managed to escape through a small window and sought help from a neighbour. The defendant admitted to knowing about the kidnapping and staying with the victim but claimed he did not actively participate in the crime.

The legal issues before the court were to determine an appropriate sentence that would hold the defendant accountable for the harm caused, promote a sense of responsibility, provide for the victim's interests, denounce the offending, and deter the defendant and others from committing such offences. The court also needed to consider the defendant's culpability, the gravity of the offence, and the principles of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court found the defendant played a lesser role in the kidnapping but was still a party to the continued detention of the victim. The starting point for sentencing was set at two years and six months, but the court reduced the sentence to 18 months by considering the defendant's age, relatively clean record, and the pre-sentence report which suggested the defendant was unworldly and somewhat naive. The court also applied a credit of almost 20% for the defendant's guilty plea. The court considered home detention as an alternative to imprisonment, but the defendant's actions before and after the sentencing date indicated he would not be able to comply with the conditions of home detention. Therefore, the court sentenced the defendant to 18 months imprisonment.

The court also imposed special release conditions to follow the defendant's sentence, including residing at a specific address, and undertaking any assessment, counselling, treatment or programme as directed by the probation officer and provider.

Orders