R v Rameka - [2015] NZHC 2530

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI-2008-083-2794 [2015] NZHC 2530

THE QUEEN

v

RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA

Hearing: 9 October 2015

Counsel:

E A Hall for Defendant
L C Rowe for Crown

Judgment:

19 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] The defendant, Raeleen Rameka, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of manslaughter. Her trial is set down to begin in Whanganui on 11 April 2016. Because of the date of the alleged offending, the Crimes Act 1961 applies. Ms Rameka now applies pursuant to s 322 of that Act for the venue of her trial to be moved from Whanganui because, she says, there is a real risk that she may not receive a fair trial in Whanganui. Ms Rameka considers Wellington would be an
appropriate venue.

R v RAMEKA [2015] NZHC 2530 [19 October 2015]

Background

[2] On 23 September 2008, a Mr Paul Kumeroa was assaulted whilst walking home on a Whanganui street. His assailants were Clark McCallum and Daniel Rippon. Messrs McCallum and Rippon were the occupants of a car driven by a Ms Jamie Ahsin. Ms Rameka was also in that car. The essential facts are that the car Ms Ahsin was driving did a u-turn as it passed Mr Kumeroa. Mr McCallum and Mr Rippon alighted from the car and assaulted Mr Kumeroa. Mr McCallum returned to the vehicle and then went back to where Mr Kumeroa was and struck him with a small axe. The two men got back into the car and the vehicle left the scene.

[3] Mr Kumeroa subsequently died.

[4] Mr Kumeroa was, at the time he was assaulted, wearing a red sweatshirt and was heavily intoxicated. The evidence was that earlier that day the group of four, who were Black Power members and associates, had been provoking violence with and against members of the Mongrel Mob. Red is the colour associated with the Mongrel Mob. Mr Kumeroa’s red sweatshirt was mistakenly taken as showing his Mongrel Mob affiliation. He was attacked accordingly. In fact, Mr Kumeroa had no association with the Mongrel Mob.

[5] At the time, there was a disturbingly high level of violence and tension between the Black Power and Mongrel Mob gangs in Whanganui. It was around that time that the drive-by killing of a young Māori child occurred.

[6] The four were subsequently charged with murder. They stood trial in Whanganui in November and December of 2009. They were each found guilty by the jury on 11 December 2009, and sentenced to life imprisonment on 12 February
2010: Mr McCallum to serve a minimum term of 15 years, Mr Rippon to serve a minimum term of 12 years, and Ms Ahsin and Ms Rameka to serve a minimum term…

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 [2015] NZHC 2530
Case: [2015] NZHC 2530
Decision Date: 19 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Raeleen Matewa Noyle Rameka, applied for a change of venue from Whanganui to Wellington for her retrial on a charge of manslaughter. The Crown opposed the application. The issue before the court was whether there was a real risk that Rameka could not receive a fair trial in Whanganui due to prejudicial publicity. The court considered the nature and extent of the publicity, the time that had elapsed since the offending, and the impact of the publicity on a Whanganui jury. The court found that the publicity, while extensive, did not create a real risk of prejudice that would prevent Rameka from receiving a fair trial in Whanganui. The application for a change of venue was therefore declined. The court ordered that publication of the judgment and proceedings be prohibited until final disposition of the retrial, but allowed publication in law reports or digests.

Orders