R v Potaka-Alexander - [2012] NZHC 2788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-090-6777 [2012] NZHC 2788

THE QUEEN

v

RANGI PAUL POTAKA-ALEXANDER

Hearing: 24 October 2012

Counsel: Y Yelavich for the Crown
M Goodwin and M Dixon for Mr Potaka-Alexander

Judgment: 24 October 2012

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms Y Yelavich, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr M Goodwin, Barrister, Auckland

R V POTAKA-ALEXANDER HC AK CRI-2011-090-6777 [24 October 2012]

[1] Mr Potaka-Alexander, you may remain seated until I come to impose the sentence in a formal way. You appear for sentence for four offences. I need to explain all of this not just to you but to the victims and to the community as a whole, so it will take some time.

[2] The most serious of the offences is wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. You were found guilty of this crime after a trial. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. And you should reflect on that.

[3] You pleaded guilty to the remaining charges. These are: attempting to pervert the course of justice, which has a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment; assault with intent to injure, with a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment; and assaulting a female, with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.

The facts

[4] The wounding and assault with intent to injure both occurred early in the morning of 26 August 2011 and both involved attacks by you on Police Constable Iversen.

[5] On the morning of 26 August 2011 there was a serious altercation between you and your former partner, Ms K. Ms K ran from the house and got neighbours to phone the Police. Constable Iversen arrived by himself. While he was seated in the patrol car talking to Ms K you got into the middle of the back seat of the car. Ms K was sitting in the front passenger seat next to Constable Iversen who was in the driver’s seat. Both of them therefore initially had their backs to you. Constable Iversen did not immediately realise that you were Ms K’s partner and he did not initially sense that there was any threat. He asked who you were. He did not challenge you in any way. You said to Ms K: “It’s your fault that I have to do this”. At this point Constable Iversen saw that you had a knife in one of your hands. It was a long bladed kitchen knife. Without any warning you looked at Constable Iversen wide eyed, said to him you were going to kill him and lunged at his head with the knife. The Constable put up his left hand to try and divert the knife, and grabbed the

blade with his right hand. You lunged at the Constable with the knife a second time. During the trial you said you thrust at him, but did not lunge. The difference is irrelevant. There was a struggle for a short period until, with some help…

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 Potaka-Alexander

Details

AGLC: R v Potaka-Alexander [2012] NZHC 2788
Case: [2012] NZHC 2788
Decision Date: 24 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Potaka-Alexander addressed the sentencing of the defendant, Rangi Paul Potaka-Alexander, for multiple offenses including wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault with intent to injure, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and assaulting a female. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for each offence, considering the severity, aggravating factors, and personal circumstances of the defendant. The key legal issue was to ascertain the appropriate starting point for the most serious offense, which was wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and then to adjust this starting point based on the other offenses and personal mitigating factors.

The court found that the offense of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was particularly serious due to several aggravating factors including premeditation, the use of a lethal weapon, attacking a vulnerable victim who was a police officer, and the attack occurring in the course of the officer's duties. Based on these factors, the court set the starting point for this offense at 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, placing it in the middle of band 2 as per the Taueki guidelines. An uplift of 1 year was added for the second attack on the Constable and for the other offenses, leading to a total of 8 years and 6 months before considering personal factors. The court then applied reductions for the defendant's age, expressions of remorse, and stated intention to address his alcohol and anger issues, reducing the sentence to 7 years and 9 months. A further reduction of 10% was made for the guilty pleas, resulting in a final sentence of 6 years and 11 months imprisonment for the most serious offense, with concurrent sentences for the other charges.

The final orders were that Potaka-Alexander be sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and 11 months for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, 1 year and 8 months for assault with intent to injure, 1 year and 6 months for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and 1 year for assaulting a female. All sentences were to run concurrently. Despite a calculation error in the reduction for guilty pleas, the court found no basis to recall the defendant for resentencing.

Orders