R v Karauria - [2017] NZHC 2759

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF ANY COMPLAINANTS/PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CRI-2016-087-000346

[2017] NZHC 2759

THE QUEEN

v

GENE ELLEN KARAURIA AND

LENEITH CHARLES MOEKE

Hearing: 10 November 2017

Appearances:

A J Pollett for the Crown

R O Gowing for the Defendant, Karauria G R Tomlinson for the Defendant, Moeke

Sentence:

10 November 2017

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Solicitors: Hollister-Jones Lellman, Tauranga
Gowing and Co Ltd, Whakatane

R v KARAURIA and MOEKE [2017] NZHC 2759 [10 November 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Moeke, Ms Karauria, you both appear for sentencing today having been found guilty of one charge of ill treatment of a vulnerable adult. That charge carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Moeke, you were also found guilty of one charge of assault with intent to injure that same vulnerable adult. That offence carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment. You pleaded guilty to one charge of assault on a child which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. I am sentencing you today for those offences also.

[3] Both of you were convicted of these offences following a jury trial in this Court. You were acquitted of a number of other violence related charges against the vulnerable adult.

The offending

[4]I turn now to the offending which gives rise to the charges.

[5] The ill treatment of a vulnerable adult charge arose out of your care of a 32- year-old man. He has an intellectual disability which affects not only his IQ, but also his day to day living skills. Expert evidence at trial assessed his communication skills, personal self-care, domestic skills, and socialisation skills as being equivalent to that of a child aged anywhere between two years 10 months for some skills and 11 and a half years for others. It was that intellectual disability that made him vulnerable.

[6] You took the victim into your home. He was living down by the banks of a river at the time. Initially things went well. However, for the last four or five months of his time with you, you treated him extremely poorly.

[7] Your ill treatment of him took different forms which in combination amounted to a major departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.

[8] You restricted the food that he could eat, and at times he was only provided with one meal a day. There was medical evidence at trial that his hair loss was consistent with poor nutritional status, including not having enough food or not eating well enough.

[9] You also subjected him to verbal…

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 Karauria

Details

AGLC: R v Karauria [2017] NZHC 2759
Case: [2017] NZHC 2759
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand sentenced Gene Ellen Karauria and Leneith Charles Moeke for their conviction of ill treatment of a vulnerable adult, with Moeke additionally convicted of assault with intent to injure and assault on a child. The court established a starting point of 20 months' imprisonment for the ill treatment charge against Moeke, and applied an uplift of five months for the assault with intent to injure charge. Moeke's offer of reparation and compliance with electronic monitoring bail resulted in discounts to the sentence. The court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to appropriately address the gravity of the offending and to achieve the purposes of accountability, denouncement, and deterrence. In contrast, Karauria's sentence of seven months' home detention was deemed appropriate due to her expression of remorse, offer of reparation, and lack of additional violent offending.

The court sentenced Moeke to 19 months' imprisonment, consisting of 18 months for the ill treatment charge, five months for the assault with intent to injure charge (to be served concurrently), and one month for the assault on a child charge (to be served cumulatively). Moeke was also ordered to pay reparation to the vulnerable adult victim. Karauria was sentenced to seven months' home detention and ordered to pay reparation to the vulnerable adult victim.

Orders