R v Neketai - [2013] NZHC 2711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-070-1557 [2013] NZHC 2711

THE QUEEN

v

WITERI AHOMIRO NEKETAI JOSEPH REWIRI

Charges:

Pleas:

Murder (Neketai) Manslaughter (Rewiri)

Not Guilty (Neketai) Guilty (Rewiri)

Counsel:

N Belton for Crown AC Balme for Neketai

AF Rickard-Simms and K Cihan for Rewiri

Sentenced:

18 October 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Crown Anthony Balme (Tauranga) for Neketai
Pacific Coast Law (Papamoa) for Rewiri

R v NEKETAI & REWIRI [2013] NZHC 2711 [18 October 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Neketai, the jury found you guilty of the murder of Gary Kimura.

[2] Mr Rewiri, you pleaded part way through trial to the manslaughter of Mr Kimura.

[3] I must sentence you both accordingly.

Facts

[4] The jury heard all the facts. I will set them out briefly.

[5] Mr Rewiri is a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder since 2008. Nevertheless, he had access to a cellphone. In late September 2011, Mr Rewiri used the cellphone to make arrangements with Mr Neketai to collect an alleged drug debt of $35,000 from Mr Kimura, a 44 year old man who was living in Tauranga with his family. In the text message conversation, Mr Rewiri encouraged Mr Neketai to seriously assault Mr Kimura during the course of the debt collection. Mr Neketai agreed. The motive for both men was to get money, namely a share of the debt.

[6] On 5 October 2011, Mr Neketai borrowed a car and with two associates drove to Mr Kimura’s home. In accordance with a plan to lure Mr Kimura outside, one of the associates knocked on the door. He was a young man not known to Mr Kimura. Mr Kimura’s daughter answered the door and the associate asked for Mr Kimura. The daughter fetched Mr Kimura who came to the door and went outside. He was confronted by Mr Neketai on the driveway in front of the garage. Mr Neketai demanded the money. When Mr Kimura refused, Mr Neketai punched Mr Kimura in the head very hard. The force of the blow caused the 109 kg Mr Kimura to fly through the air and land on the concrete, hitting his head.

[7] I find as a fact that Mr Neketai then kicked Mr Kimura at least once in the head while he lay on the ground already bleeding profusely. I accept that it was the punch which was the fatal blow but the jury was entitled to regard the kick as evidence of Mr Neketai’s intent when he punched Mr Kimura.

[8] The Crown’s case was not that Mr Neketai went to Mr Kimura’s house intending to kill him. Neither was it the Crown’s case that Mr Neketai intended to kill Mr Kimura when he punched him. The Crown’s case, which the jury found proved, was that when Mr Neketai punched Mr Kimura he intended to cause Mr Kimura bodily injury which he knew was likely to cause death and he was reckless whether death…

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 Neketai

Details

AGLC: R v Neketai [2013] NZHC 2711
Case: [2013] NZHC 2711
Decision Date: 18 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, the defendants, Neketai and Rewiri, faced charges of murder and manslaughter respectively, relating to the death of Gary Kimura. The court needed to decide the appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering the nature and context of their offending and their individual circumstances. Neketai, found guilty of murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years. The court found that while the violence used was severe, the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the premeditated nature and the use of violence to extort money, warranted an increased minimum period of imprisonment. Rewiri, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter, received a nine-year sentence to be served concurrently with his existing life sentence for a previous murder. The court noted his role in instigating the crime and his extensive criminal history but also considered his plea of guilty and the potential for rehabilitation.

The reasoning behind the sentences focused on the gravity of the crimes, the intent and planning behind them, and the personal histories of the defendants. For Neketai, the court emphasised the need to protect the community from a repeat offender who showed a pattern of violent criminal behaviour. The increased minimum period of imprisonment aimed to reflect the high risk of reoffending. For Rewiri, the sentence recognised his role in the crime but also his existing life sentence and the potential for the Parole Board to manage his risk within that framework. The court balanced the need for punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation, taking into account the defendants' backgrounds and the impact of their actions on the victims and their families.

Orders