R v Makiri - [2021] NZHC 1701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-002406

[2021] NZHC 1701

THE QUEEN

v

BREEN MAKIRI

Hearing: 8 July 2021

Appearances:

A McConachy for the Crown M Dorset for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 July 2021

(ORAL) SENTENCING REMARKS OF WALKER J

R v BREEN MAKIRI [2021] NZHC 1701 [8 July 2021]

[1] Breen Makiri, you appear today for sentence. You have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of your adult son, Breen Joseph Paul Makiri, and wounding with reckless disregard Sabrina Wihapi. Both charges arise from an incident which took place in August 2020.

[2] I intend to keep my sentencing remarks today very brief. This is because the material I have read indicates that you have trouble concentrating for any length of time. A communication assistant is here today to help you understand my remarks for that reason.

[3] On 18 February 2021 at the request of your lawyer, Ms Dorset, I gave you a sentencing indication.1 You accepted that indication and pleaded guilty. Convictions have been entered and a first strike warning delivered to you. A copy of that indication, which sets out the facts, will be attached to the sentencing remarks I deliver today. I am not going to repeat the facts or the reasons why I came to a starting point for your sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment. The only thing that I will say is that I acknowledged in those remarks that your actions which led you here today were the end result of a violent argument with your son; that your son in a drunken state punched you first, began overturning furniture in your home and threatening to throw the television set after you asked him to leave. You then launched a frenzied attack, stabbing your son at least 12 times and striking Ms Wihapi when she intervened to stop you.

[4] My task today is to hand down your final sentence. The accepted approach to sentencing has two stages. The first stage involves identifying a starting point for your offending. I did that in my sentencing indication. I said then that the indication would be subject to adjustment if further material was provided to me about your personal circumstances and background. The second stage of the sentencing process, and the focus of today’s hearing, is to adjust that starting point to reflect those features which are personal to you, Mr Makiri.2

1 R v Makiri [2021] NZHC 216 [Sentencing Indication].
2 See Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.

[5] I must also consider whether it is necessary to impose a minimum period of imprisonment before you can be eligible for parole.3

Impact on the victims

[6] I turn first to the victim impact statement from your son, Breen Makiri Jr. Your son explains that he has talked to you since these events, that he still loves you, but no longer cares…

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 Makiri

Details

AGLC: R v Makiri [2021] NZHC 1701
Case: [2021] NZHC 1701
Decision Date: 8 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Breen Makiri appeared in the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing after pleading guilty to charges of attempted murder of his son, Breen Joseph Paul Makiri, and wounding with reckless disregard of Sabrina Wihapi. The charges arose from an incident in August 2020, where Makiri attacked his son and Ms. Wihapi following a violent argument. The court considered a starting point for the sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment, acknowledging the mitigating factors such as Makiri’s traumatic brain injury from a 1990 assault, which had resulted in cognitive impairments and emotional instability.

The legal issues centred around determining an appropriate sentence that reflected Makiri’s personal circumstances, including his traumatic brain injury and cultural background, while also considering the impact on the victims. The court had to balance the need for accountability and deterrence against the mitigating factors of Makiri’s limited culpability due to his injury. The court also deliberated on whether a minimum non-parole period was necessary for public protection.

In its reasoning, the court found that Makiri’s traumatic brain injury significantly reduced his culpability and explained his violent overreaction during the incident. The court determined that a 20% discount was appropriate for his personal circumstances, cultural factors, and vulnerabilities, resulting in a total discount of 35%. Despite acknowledging Makiri's limited insight and potential risk of reoffending, the court decided against imposing a longer non-parole period, trusting the Parole Board to assess his release based on public safety concerns. The final sentence was five years and six months’ imprisonment for the attempted murder charge, with an additional concurrent 12-month sentence for the wounding charge, making the effective sentence five years and six months.

Orders