R v Kinghazel - [2017] NZHC 2825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2016-087-001518 [2017] NZHC 2825

THE QUEEN

v

HETARAKA TAUWHAU KINGHAZEL RICHIE-LEE JADE MATEKUARE

Hearing: 17 November 2017

Appearances:

H J Sheridan for Crown
B Hesketh for Mr Kinghazel
R Gowing for Mr Matekuare

Sentence:

17 November 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v KINGHAZEL & MATEKUARE [2017] NZHC 2825 [17 November 2017]

[1] Mr Kinghazel and Mr Matekuare, you appear today for sentence on a charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of your victim. You were also charged with a much more serious charge. This was a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so. That particular charge carried a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment, whereas the present charge carries a maximum sentence of just seven years imprisonment. Having regard to your guilty plea in relation to the lesser charge, the Crown has elected to advance no evidence in respect of the other charge and I now discharge you each on that charge pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[2] Your guilty pleas were entered after a sentence indication hearing.1 That was a hearing at which I indicated the sentence that would be imposed on you in the event that you entered guilty pleas relatively promptly to the lesser charge. The only aspects of the sentencing process that I undertook at that time were the fixing of the starting point and the discounts to be given for guilty pleas and youth. I did not take into account other factors personal to you that might operate to reduce the sentences further. For that reason you now know the principal components of the sentence that you will receive today. My only function is to determine whether and, if so to what extent, I should reduce your sentences further to reflect additional mitigating factors that are now apparent.

The charges

[3] Before doing that, however, I need to traverse the facts that give rise to the charges. Although I did this in reasonable detail at the earlier hearing, I now repeat my remarks so that everybody present in Court today understands the background against which I impose these sentences. In particular, it is important that the members of the victim’s family who are present today understand the facts on which I sentence you and the reasoning process that I adopted in reaching the starting points and
discounts that were applied at the previous hearing.

1 The sentence indication is annexed to these remarks.

[4] The charges were laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the night of

30 September and early morning of 1 October 2016. These are recorded in a summary of facts that was presented to me at the sentence indication hearing. I am bound to sentence you on the basis of that summary.

[5] The summary records that you are close associates and live in Kawerau. Your…

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 Kinghazel

Details

AGLC: R v Kinghazel [2017] NZHC 2825
Case: [2017] NZHC 2825
Decision Date: 17 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Tauranga Registry, the defendants, Mr Kinghazel and Mr Matekuare, appeared for sentencing on a charge of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of another person. They were also initially charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent, but the Crown elected to dismiss this charge due to the defendants' guilty pleas. The legal issues involved determining the appropriate sentence based on the nature of the offence and the defendants' mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered the defendants' guilty pleas, youth, lack of criminal history, and remorse as mitigating factors, while the severity of the victim's injuries and the defendants' actions during and after the assault were seen as aggravating factors. The court also took into account the defendants' involvement in conspiring to pervert the course of justice. After assessing these factors, the court sentenced Mr Kinghazel to three years and three months imprisonment and Mr Matekuare to three years and eight months imprisonment. Both defendants were also ordered to make emotional harm payments to the victim.

Orders