R v Ko - [2024] NZHC 3311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2022-019-004036

[2024] NZHC 3311

THE KING

v

CHITKO KO

Defendant

Hearing: 14 November 2024

Appearances:

J Hamilton for Crown T C Tran for Defendant

Sentencing:

14 November 2024

SENTENCING OF WHATA J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Hamilton Legal (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Hamilton T C Tran, Barrister, Hamilton

R v CHITKO KO [2024] NZHC 3311 [14 November 2024]

[1] Mr Chit ko Ko you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter.1 I will now sentence you.

[2] Before I do so I wish to acknowledge the family and friends of your victim, Mr Thompson.

[3] Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, ka tino nui te aroha kia koutou, nga whanau pani o te tangata kua mate. Ahakoa, kāore au e whakaeaea o koutou mamae, kua rongo au i o koutou tangi. Nāreira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[4] I also wish to acknowledge that I have heard today from his daughter Mereana, his grandchild Hazel, his sisters Raewyn and Tanya, his brother Tongia, and his niece Lulu.2

[5] You have told me something of your and therefore his whakapapa, of Aorangi, Hautapu, Tautahi, and of Hinemanu and of the chief Te Whaaro. And I am grateful for that.

[6] You each speak of a very special koro, papa, and tuakana. A gentle giant who cared deeply for his family, and whose family cared deeply for him. A man of mana, mana whenua, mana reo, mana tangata and mana aotūroa.

[7] You have spoken of trauma caused at his loss, alongside several losses you suffered shortly before his passing. Some of you speak of trying to reach a place of forgiveness. But the wound is still too raw, and may never heal.

[8] I hope you understand that the sentence I impose is one that I am bound to impose by law, and I know nothing I say will bring you peace. But please know that both your loss and your words have been woven into the sentence I must now hand down.

[9]Returning then to you Mr Chit ko Ko, my sentencing will be in five parts:

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2 In the oral sentencing I incorrectly referred to Lulu as the granddaughter.

(a)First, I will set out the facts of your offending.

(b)Second, I will set out your personal circumstances that are relevant to your sentence.

(c)Third, I will set out the framework for my sentence and apply it to you.

(d)Fourth, I will hand down my sentence.

Facts

[10]Mr Chit ko Ko you pleaded guilty to the following facts.

[11] Mr Chit ko Ko your home was situated next to a long driveway. Mr Thompson’s home was one of the properties accessed by that driveway. On the morning of 17 September 2022, you were seen outside your house acting aggressively, yelling, and swearing. Later that morning, three of Mr Thompson’s grandchildren were in a…

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 Ko

Details

AGLC: R v Ko [2024] NZHC 3311
Case: [2024] NZHC 3311
Decision Date: 14 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Chit ko Ko was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to three years and eleven months in prison. The case involved a violent altercation between Ko and the victim, Mr Thompson, which resulted in Mr Thompson's death. The dispute arose from a prior incident where Ko threw urine at Mr Thompson's grandchildren's vehicle. Mr Thompson confronted Ko, leading to a physical fight inside Ko's home where Ko stabbed Mr Thompson multiple times with a homemade weapon. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the nature of the crime, Ko's personal circumstances, and relevant legal principles.

The primary legal issues included establishing the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on similar cases, adjusting the starting point to account for Ko's personal circumstances, and deciding whether Ko must serve a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). The court considered Ko's mental health condition, which was found to significantly impair his judgment and culpability, as well as his difficult background and prior violent offenses. The court also examined whether deterrence and denunciation were necessary given Ko's mental health condition.

The court set a starting point of six and a half years based on the seriousness of the violence and the use of a lethal weapon. A discount of 20% was applied for Ko's mental health condition, 10% for his challenging upbringing, and 15% for his late guilty plea. An uplift of 5% was applied for his prior violent offenses. These adjustments led to a final sentence of three years and eleven months. The court concluded that an MPI was unnecessary as community protection could be ensured through parole review.

Orders