R v Rameka - [2024] NZHC 324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2022-090-2302

[2024] NZHC 324

THE KING

v

COLIN EDDIE VAKA RAMEKA

Hearing: 27 February 2024

Appearances:

B Tantrum for the Crown A Ives for the defendant

Date:

27 February 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

R v RAMEKA [2024] NZHC 324 [27 February 2024]

[1] Mr Rameka, a jury found you guilty of murdering your ex-partner, Cammie Hohenberger, and of firearms offending.

[2] My job today, on behalf of the community, is to sentence you for that murder and for the firearms offending.

[3] Before I do so, I acknowledge Ms Hohenberger’s family and friends, many of whom are here in court, and in particular Cammie’s mother and sister who have spoken this morning.

[4] I will say more about how your offending has affected Ms Hohenberger’s family and friends in a moment. First, I will describe your offending. I am sorry for the pain that some in the courtroom may feel in hearing me do that, but sentencing is a public process and it is therefore something that I have to do.

Facts

[5] Mr Rameka, you and Ms Hohenberger were in a relationship for about 13 years. You had two children together, [redacted] and [redacted]. You separated from Ms Hohenberger in about 2020. You still saw your children every weekend or two.

[6] On Saturday 9 July 2022, [redacted] came to spend the weekend with you at your home in Pukekohe. He was 11 at the time. [Redacted] ended up staying longer than the weekend. You arranged with Ms Hohenberger to return [redacted] to her home on the evening of 12 July.

[7] When the evening of 12 July came, you drove [redacted] to Ms Hohenberger’s home. Before doing so, you had put a semi-automatic .223 rifle in the boot of your car. It was loaded.

[8] You arrived at Ms Hohenberger’s home at about 8.50 pm on 12 July. You backed down the driveway and parked outside Ms Hohenberger’s garage. You told [redacted] to wait in the front passenger seat of the car. You then got out of the car, went to the boot, and took out the loaded rifle. Ms Hohenberger was just outside her

garage. You fired four shots at her from close range. You fired the last shot while Ms Hohenberger was lying on the ground. Ms Hohenberger was killed instantly.

[9] Meanwhile, [redacted] was in the car. He turned to see his mother and then heard the four gunshots. He opened the car door and saw his mother lying on the ground.

[10] After you shot Mr Hohenberger, you calmly placed the rifle back into the boot, got into the car, and drove off. You dropped [redacted] at his grandmother’s house. You told [redacted] that that was probably the last time he would see you.

[11] Police located and arrested you later that night. They found the rifle and ammunition in your car. They…

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 Rameka

Details

AGLC: R v Rameka [2024] NZHC 324
Case: [2024] NZHC 324
Decision Date: 27 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rameka was heard by Campbell J in the High Court of New Zealand. Colin Eddie Vaka Rameka was convicted by a jury of murdering his ex-partner, Cammie Hohenberger, and of firearms offences. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, including a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) before Rameka would be eligible to apply for parole. The Crown argued that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness, which would mandate a minimum sentence of 17 years under section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The defence countered that section 104 was not engaged and submitted that the MPI should be less than 13 years, taking into account Rameka's mitigating circumstances, including his mental health issues.

Campbell J considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The murder was premeditated, involved the use of a semi-automatic weapon, and was carried out in a manner that was callous and cruel, particularly as it was witnessed by Rameka's son. However, the court found that while the murder was cruel and callous, it did not reach the exceptional threshold required to engage section 104. The court also accepted that Rameka was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which contributed to his offending, and this reduced his moral culpability. After considering comparable cases, the court determined a starting point of 13 years for the MPI, which was uplifted by three months to account for the fact that Rameka was on bail at the time of the offence and had prior relevant convictions. Therefore, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of 13 years and three months before Rameka could apply for parole. On the firearms charges, the court imposed a concurrent sentence of six months’ imprisonment on each charge.

Orders