R v Karekare - [2018] NZHC 1364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2016-087-1518

[2018] NZHC 1364

THE QUEEN

v

ANARU KAREKARE

Hearing: 11 June 2018

Counsel:

H J Sheridan for Crown M Simpkins for Prisoner

Judgment:

11 June 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Pollett Legal, Tauranga
Lance Lawson, Rotorua

R v KAREKARE [2018] NZHC 1364 [11 June 2018]

Summary

[1] Mr Karekare, you have pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard. The maximum sentence for this offending is 7 years’ imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The maximum penalty for this offending is also 7 years’ imprisonment.

[2]I must sentence you on this offending.

[3] Before I do so, I want to acknowledge the presence here today of the victim’s mother. I want to acknowledge your bravery and your generosity in permitting Mr Karekare’s family to speak to you and in allowing Mr Karekare to express his sadness to you for what he has done.

Facts

[4] Turning then to the facts of your offending, Mr Karekare. They are agreed. This is a summary.

[5] In the early morning of 1 October 2016, you were socialising and drinking alcohol on the balcony area of the Whakatane Hotel. A disagreement broke out over the allegiances you and your associates, and the victim, had to the Mongrel Mob. You and two others (Mr Matekuare and Mr Kinghazel) rushed the victim, punching him in the head, which caused him to flip backwards over the balcony rail and onto the roof below. Mr Matekuare then grabbed the victim and punched him in the head and face three times, causing him to fall back onto the roof unconscious or semiconscious. You three then climbed over the balcony rail and onto the roof where you all continued to kick and punch him.

[6] The victim then tried to crawl away. This and the continuing assaults meant the victim got closer and closer to the edge of the roof, until he fell onto the pavement below. His head and back took the full impact of the fall onto the cobblestone pavement. Members of the public immediately began to render him assistance. You

went downstairs and having been told to stay there, as the police were coming, you attacked them.

[7] The conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charges relate to phone calls between you and Mr Kinghazel in which you acknowledged your involvement in the offending, discussed assaulting Mr Matekuare who you perceived had “narked” on you, and discussed a specific witness who Mr Kinghazel said he would talk to and tell her not to make any statements. You agreed with this course of action and told Mr Kinghazel to tell the witness to blame it all on Mr Matekuare.

Victim impact statement

[8] I want to now talk briefly about the victim. He spent five weeks in an intensive care unit, where he was in a coma…

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 Karekare

Details

AGLC: R v Karekare [2018] NZHC 1364
Case: [2018] NZHC 1364
Decision Date: 11 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Karekare was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry. The defendant, Anarau Karekare, had pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard and conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The maximum penalty for each offence was seven years' imprisonment. The court needed to decide on an appropriate sentence, considering the nature and severity of the offending, the defendant's culpability, and the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act. The court also had to consider the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, cultural background, and remorse, as well as the sentences given to his co-offenders.

The court commenced by setting a starting point of five years and six months, with an additional six-month uplift for the conspiracy charge. The court then applied a 20% discount for the defendant's age and lack of prior convictions, a 10% discount for his remorse, reparation offer, and willingness to engage in restorative justice, and a 5% discount for his potential for rehabilitation. The court also applied a 10% discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The final sentence was reduced to three years and six months for the grievous bodily harm charge and two years for the conspiracy charge, to be served concurrently.

The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community and promoting the defendant's rehabilitation. It noted that the defendant had shown genuine remorse and had sought to reconnect with his whanau and Maoritanga. The court also imposed a reparation order for the sum of $3,000 to be paid in weekly instalments of $20 following the defendant's release. The court hoped that the defendant would take this opportunity to turn his life around and follow a different path.

Orders