R v Rameka - [2023] NZHC 2420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-5021

[2023] NZHC 2420

THE KING

v

MIHINGARANGI TYNNEAL RAMEKA DANIEL JAMES PAYNE

NEHA WIREMU GREY ANTON RITE

Counsel:
D J McWilliam and S A Teki-Clark for Crown R A A Weir and G C Prentice for Rameka

S L McColgan for Payne

J E Tarrant and R L Brown for Grey A J Holland and D S Niven for Rite

Sentenced:

1 September 2023

Charges:

Rameka: Wounding/injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (3); Kidnapping (2); Murder

Payne:    Kidnapping (3); Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; Murder

Grey:     Kidnapping (3); Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; Murder

Rite:      Murder

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

R v RAMEKA & ORS [2023] NZHC 2420 [1 September 2023]

Introduction

[1] Ms Rameka, Mr Payne, Mr Grey and Mr Rite, I have to sentence you in accordance with the jury’s verdicts.

[2]Ms Rameka, you were found guilty of the following charges:

· Charge 2: Injuring Mr Dean Mihinui with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

· Charge 3: Kidnapping Mr Jesse Whitiora. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

· Charge 4: Wounding Mr Whitiora with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

· Charge 5: A further charge of wounding Mr Whitiora with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm.

· Charge 7: Kidnapping Mr Sao Yean.

· Charge 8: The murder of Mr Sao Yean. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

[3] Mr Payne, you were found guilty of charge 3 (kidnapping Mr Whitiora), charge 5 (wounding Mr Whitiora with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm), charge 6 (kidnapping Mr Whitiora), charge 7 (kidnapping Mr Yean) and charge 8 (the murder of Mr Yean).

[4] Mr Grey, you were found guilty of charge 3 (kidnapping Mr Whitiora), charge 5 (wounding Mr Whitiora with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm), charge 6 (kidnapping Mr Whitiora), charge 7 (kidnapping Mr Yean) and charge 8 (the murder of Mr Yean).

[5]Mr Rite, you were found guilty of charge 8 (the murder of Mr Yean).

Background

[6] I will start by setting out the facts relevant to the sentencing. I get those from the essential elements of the charges which the jury must have found proved and from the evidence which, as the trial Judge, I am satisfied were proved.

[7] Mr Payne, you are patched Black Power. All of you lived in a world dominated by gangs. Illegal drugs — buying, selling and consuming — were part of everyday life. Violence, or the threat of it, was common. You lived outside the law and within the norms of conduct of your group. That is what led you to commit the offences for which you have been convicted. The kidnappings, the beatings and finally the murder.

[8] Mr Rite, you…

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 [2023] NZHC 2420
Case: [2023] NZHC 2420
Decision Date: 1 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Rameka involved sentencing for the defendants, Mihingarangi Tynneal Rameka, Daniel James Payne, Neha Wiremu Grey, and Anton Rite. These individuals were convicted of various charges, including kidnapping, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and murder. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences, including minimum periods of imprisonment (MPI) for the murder charges, considering the brutal nature of the crimes and the roles each defendant played.

The legal issues centered around applying section 104 of the Sentencing Act, which mandates life imprisonment for murder, and determining the appropriate MPI. The court considered whether the murder was committed during the course of another serious offence, if it involved a high level of brutality, and whether it involved calculated or lengthy planning. The court also assessed personal mitigating factors for each defendant, including their backgrounds and any acceptance of responsibility.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and legal principles, the court determined that the murder was especially brutal and callous, warranting an MPI of at least 17 years. However, due to specific circumstances and mitigating factors for each defendant, the court set individual MPIs as follows: 18.5 years for Rameka, 18 years for Payne, 18 years for Grey, and 11 years for Rite. The court also sentenced the defendants for their other charges, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

In conclusion, the court imposed life imprisonment on all defendants for the murder charge, with varying MPIs based on individual circumstances and roles in the crime. The sentences for other charges were also determined, ensuring that the totality principle was respected.

Orders