Legal Research
Cases
R v Ngapera

R v Ngapera

Case [2023] NZHC 2931 19 October 2023

Personal Circumstances

Remorse

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-009236

[2023] NZHC 2931

THE KING

v

THOMAS NGAPERA ROCKY NGAPERA

Hearing: 19 October 2023

Appearances:

T A Simmonds and K F R Karpik for Crown H-A Cherrington for Thomas Ngapera

H Kim for Rocky Ngapera

Sentenced:

19 October 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland
Counsel:Harvena Cherrington Law/I Jayanandan, Auckland H N Kim, Auckland

R v NGAPERA [2023] NZHC 2931 [19 October 2023]

[1] Thomas Ngapera and Rocky Ngapera, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of being members of a conspiracy to injure Rangiwhero Ngaronoa with intent to injure him, and wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. Your guilty pleas followed a sentence indication in this Court on 25 July 2023.1 The maximum penalty for conspiracy to injure is five years and the maximum for attempting to pervert the course of justice is seven years.

[2] The two of you are brothers and are uncles of the deceased. Rocky Ngapera, you were apparently in a relationship with Kelly-Anne Burns, the mother of Ms Burns- Wong-Tung. An issue arose between Ms Burns-Wong-Tung and the deceased. She apparently took slight at some allegation he had made against her child. Ms Burns- Wong-Tung, Mr Hemopo, her partner, her mother Ms Burns, and the two of you, planned to deliver the deceased to Ms Burns-Wong-Tung in order for her to give him a beating or a hiding, to injure him. In fact, she went further and murdered him. Following a jury trial she has been convicted of that offence.

[3] On 21 November 2021, the two of you, with Thomas driving, Rocky in the front seat, took your nephew to an address in Clendon in a Ford Escape car. By arrangement there you met up with Mr Hemopo and Ms Burns-Wong-Tung. When you got there, Thomas you got out of the car. You told the others that only Ms Burns- Wong-Tung was to touch him. Ms Burns-Wong-Tung then went up to the deceased and, using a kitchen knife, stabbed him repeatedly. She assaulted him for about a minute, stabbing him at least eight times. She then left saying “thanks bruv”. As noted, she was convicted of murdering him. She will be sentenced in due course.

[4] The two of you then drove your fatally injured nephew to a medical centre. While staff at that medical centre tried to assist him, you abandoned him and left the scene. The deceased was taken to Middlemore Hospital by ambulance for emergency medical treatment but was pronounced dead at 2.32 pm.

[5] Thomas you then went to an associate’s home and cleaned the deceased’s blood from inside the car, or attempted to. At about 7.15 pm Detective Faga phoned and told you that the deceased had died and that he wished to speak to you about it. You left

1 R v Ngapera [2023] NZHC 1971.

the address…

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 Ngapera

Details

AGLC: R v Ngapera [2023] NZHC 2931
Case: [2023] NZHC 2931
Decision Date: 19 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The King v Thomas Ngapera and Rocky Ngapera involved the sentencing of the defendants who had pleaded guilty to being members of a conspiracy to injure Rangiwhero Ngaronoa with intent to injure him, and to wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. The maximum penalty for conspiracy to injure was five years and seven years for attempting to pervert the course of justice. The defendants, who were brothers and uncles of the deceased, had conspired with others to deliver the deceased to Ms Burns-Wong-Tung, who then murdered him. Following this, the defendants drove the deceased to a medical centre and abandoned him, subsequently attempting to alter the scene of the crime and providing false statements to the police.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and applying the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court had to consider the breach of trust, the planning of vigilante justice, and the defendants' roles in the conspiracy and the attempt to pervert justice. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the defendants' personal circumstances, prior convictions, remorse, and other mitigating factors in determining the final sentence.

The court began by setting a starting point of two years, nine months' imprisonment for the conspiracy charge, and uplifted this by 12 months for the attempt to pervert the course of justice. The court then considered personal aggravating factors, such as the defendants' long histories of violent convictions, and added three months to the starting point for each defendant. Mitigating factors included the defendants' guilty pleas, which resulted in a 12.5% reduction, and personal background features and time spent on electronically monitored bail, which resulted in a further reduction of 7.5% for each defendant. The court ultimately determined that Thomas Ngapera should serve three years and two months, and Rocky Ngapera the same term, with the sentences running concurrently.

Orders