R v Poarau - [2016] NZHC 443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-463-62 [2016] NZHC 443

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

MORRIS JUNIOR POARAU Respondent

Hearing: 15 March 2016

Counsel:

J E Mildenhall for Appellant
H S Edward for Respondent

Judgment:

15 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Crown Law (Wellington) for Appellant
Harry Edward Law (Rotorua) for Respondent

THE QUEEN v POARAU [2016] NZHC 443 [15 March 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Poarau was sentenced to nine months’ home detention in the Rotorua District Court, having pleaded guilty to wounding his teenage daughter with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm and assaulting her with intent to injure her.1 Those charges have maximum sentences of 14 years and three years’ imprisonment respectively.2

[2] The Crown appeals Mr Poarau’s sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate. In particular, the Crown submits that the starting point adopted was too low and that excessive discounts were given for mitigating factors.

Factual background

[3] Mr Poarau’s victim was his 18 year old daughter, who was living with him at the time. On the evening of 9 April 2015, Mr Poarau found out that his daughter had been having a relationship with her uncle, Mr Poarau’s younger brother.

[4] Mr Poarau confronted the victim on the backdoor steps of their house. He punched her in the face, grabbed her by the hair and slapped her in the face with an open hand several times. He told her not to move, and then went and got a plank of wood about 1.5m long with nails protruding from the ends. He hit her hard over the head with the plank, three times. It broke in half on the third strike. Mr Poarau then continued to hit the victim repeatedly around the head with the length of wood, causing a large gash to her head which bled profusely.

[5] Mr Poarau then ordered the victim to go to his room. She did so, curling up in a ball on the floor. When he entered the bedroom he kicked at her head, which she deflected, causing him to kick her arms. Mr Poarau then went back outside where he used the hose to wash the blood away, before instructing the victim to go outside to be hosed down as well. After he hosed her down, he slapped her on the head again and told her she was lucky that he did not get a knife and stab her.

[6] The victim required hospital treatment. She suffered a large wound to her head, which required five stitches, as well as a swollen lip, lacerations to her mouth

1 R v Poarau [2015] NZDC 20156.
2 Crimes Act 1961, ss 188(1) and 193.

and tongue and a sore neck. She did not suffer any permanent injuries and reports in her victim impact statement that she was “back to normal” within a week or two.

District Court decision

[7] Mr Poarau was sentenced by Judge Cooper, in the District Court at Rotorua,…

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 Poarau

Details

AGLC: R v Poarau [2016] NZHC 443
Case: [2016] NZHC 443
Decision Date: 15 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Poarau dealt with an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on Mr Poarau by the Rotorua District Court. Mr Poarau was sentenced to nine months' home detention for assaulting his 18-year-old daughter with intent to injure her and wounding her with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, particularly because of the severity of the assault and the number of aggravating factors involved. The primary legal issues were whether the starting point for sentencing was too low and whether excessive discounts were given for mitigating factors.

The court found that the starting point adopted by the District Court was indeed too low, given the significant aggravating factors such as the prolonged and violent nature of the assault, the use of a weapon, and the breach of trust in the father-daughter relationship. The court determined that a starting point of five years' imprisonment was more appropriate. Regarding the mitigating factors, the court held that the District Court erred by applying separate discounts for the successful restorative justice process and for remorse, which amounted to double-counting. Although the court acknowledged that the restorative justice process and the expression of remorse were genuine, it concluded that an additional discount for the successful outcome of the restorative justice process was not warranted. The court also found that the discount for cultural factors was not justified as it could imply that cultural background could excuse violence against women.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence of nine months' home detention was quashed. The court substituted a sentence of three years' imprisonment, taking into account the time Mr Poarau had already spent on home detention. Mr Poarau was directed to surrender himself to the custody of the Police immediately.

Orders