R v RAK - [2024] NZHC 1519

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF YOUNG PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-009777

[2024] NZHC 1519

THE KING

v

RAK

Hearing: 11 June 2024

Appearances:

B Vaili and C Best for Crown K-A Stoikoff for Defendant

Sentenced :

11 June 2024

REDACTED SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau
Public Defence Service, Auckland

R v RAK [2024] NZHC 1519 [11 June 2024]

[1] RAK, you are for sentence this morning having pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder and one charge of kidnapping. The maximum penalty in each case is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] I take the background from the summary of facts you pleaded guilty to. On 24 November 2022, you and SUK, who you had married about 2002 before you moved to New Zealand in 2005, were at home. You were suspicious of her, as you believed she was planning to meet another man. In the early afternoon, she distracted you by encouraging you to go to the garage. She left the home and began walking away. You opened the garage door, pursued her and tried to stop her by grabbing at her and pulling at her dress. She yelled at you, which resulted in you putting your hand over her mouth. She bit your finger. You released her and she walked away down the road. You got into your Holden truck and followed her. You caught up with her and told her to get into it. She refused. You parked your truck and ran to confront her. You had a knife with you. You told her that you had the knife. You said “I’ve got a knife here, get in the car before I stab you”. You took her by her left arm and marched her to the front passenger’s seat. Once she was in the truck you took her phone off her and drove away.

[3] You rang one of your sons from a previous marriage, REK, while SUK was in the truck with you. You detained her against her will for several hours, driving to various locations around the Coromandel, all the time maintaining possession of the knife. At one point you stabbed yourself in the leg. You told her you “wouldn’t have done this” if she had listened to you. You told her to keep quiet or you would do something crazy.

[4] At about 7.30 pm in the evening you drove back towards Auckland. On the way you called another son, RIK, instructed him to buy food, Panadol, cigarettes and to meet at a property in Boundary Road, Papakura.

[5] RIK and REK were waiting for you when you got there. When RIK approached you, you told him “I have a knife here, just leave the food and go wait in the car while…

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 RAK

Details

AGLC: R v RAK [2024] NZHC 1519
Case: [2024] NZHC 1519
Decision Date: 11 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v RAK, the defendant was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand on 11 June 2024. RAK pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder and one charge of kidnapping. The maximum penalty for each charge was 14 years' imprisonment. The court heard the sentencing submissions from B Vaili and C Best for the Crown and K-A Stoikoff for the defendant.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the applicability of any uplift for the kidnapping, and the consideration of personal aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also had to decide on the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) and the total sentence to be imposed.

The court determined that the starting point for the attempted murder charge was 11½ years, considering the extreme violence and the vulnerability of the 11-year-old victim. An uplift of 18 months for the kidnapping charge led to an adjusted starting point of 13 years. The court allowed a 15% discount for the late guilty plea and a six-month discount for the restrictive bail conditions but found no allowance for remorse. The court imposed a minimum non-parole period of two-thirds of the sentence for the attempted murder charge, resulting in a total sentence of 10½ years.

The final orders included a sentence of nine years for the attempted murder charge, one and a half years for the kidnapping charge, and a minimum non-parole period of six years for the attempted murder charge.

Orders