NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CRI-2022-009-2037
[2024] NZHC 3161
THE KING
v
MARCUS PAUL PANAPA
Hearing:
29 October 2024
Counsel:
W S Taffs for Crown
R A Peters for Defendant
Date:
29 October 2024
SENTENCING NOTES OF McHERRON J
Introduction
[1] Mr Panapa, you were found guilty of violent offending against your former partner at a jury trial before me earlier this year. You are here for sentencing on 20 charges. The charges are:
(a)Assault with a weapon (x 2).1
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 202C. Maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.
R v PANAPA [2024] NZHC 3161 [29 October 2024]
(b)Male assaults female (x 7).2
(c)Kidnapping (x 3).3
(d)Threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm (x 3).4
(e)Injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (x 3).5
(f)Attempting to pervert the course of justice (x 2).6
[2] I will decide what is an appropriate finite term of imprisonment for your offending, and whether I should impose a minimum period of imprisonment (an MPI). However, because of your history of violent offending, I also have to consider whether preventive detention is the appropriate sentence.7
[3] As your counsel Mr Peters puts it, the main issue before this Court is whether a significant but finite term of imprisonment is sufficient to meet the interests of justice, as opposed to the argument of the Crown that preventive detention should be imposed.
[4] Mr Panapa you have been sentenced many times before by many Judges and you know that I cannot just look at you and impose a sentence. Where preventive detention is in issue, the sentencing will take some time.
[5]I will address five matters:
(a)First, I will describe the facts of the offending. Sentencing is a public process.
2 Crimes Act, s 194(b). Maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment.
3 Crimes Act, s 209(b). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
4 Crimes Act, s 306(a). Maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
5 Crimes Act, s 189(1). Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
6 Crimes Act, s 117(a). Maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
7 Mr Panapa’s jury trial was transferred to the High Court because preventive detention was sought. See R v Panapa [2022] NZHC 671.
(b)Second, I will outline the approach taken to assess a starting point for all your offending together considering any mitigating and aggravating factors of the offending.
(c)Third, I will apply any uplifts or reductions from that starting point to reflect your personal aggravating and any mitigating factors. This will allow me to decide on a finite term of imprisonment.
(d)I will then consider whether to impose an MPI.
(e)Finally, I will consider whether a sentence of preventive detention is warranted.
Purposes and principles of sentencing
[6] In sentencing you today, I will apply the Sentencing Act 2002. The main…
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 Panapa
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Panapa [2024] NZHC 3161
Case
[2024] NZHC 3161
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Panapa, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with sentencing Marcus Paul Panapa, who was found guilty of multiple charges of violent offending against his former partner. The charges included assault with a weapon, male assaults female, kidnapping, threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court had to decide whether a significant but finite term of imprisonment was sufficient, or if preventive detention was warranted. The judge, McHerron J, acknowledged the victim and her family, and outlined the purposes of sentencing, including accountability, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. The court considered the gravity of the offending, the degree of culpability, and the seriousness of the harm caused. The judge assessed the Christchurch, Auckland and Wellington, and perverting the course of justice offending separately, and then adjusted for totality. The starting point for the Christchurch offending was six years, uplifted by one and a half years for prior offending and six months for offending while on supervision and bail, resulting in a sentence of 13 years. The overall adjusted starting point was 11 years. The court considered imposing a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI), but ultimately decided against it. The court then considered whether preventive detention was warranted, concluding that a lengthy finite sentence with a detailed treatment plan was preferable. The judge sentenced Panapa to 13 years’ imprisonment, with an MPI of six and a half years, structured as three cumulative groups of concurrent sentences.