R v Rameka

[2014] NZHC 2662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-063-651 [2014] NZHC 2662

THE QUEEN

v

BRENDA-LEE RAMEKA

Hearing:	29 October 2014
Counsel:	N Tahana for Crown AC Balme for Defendant
Sentence:	29 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF FOGARTY J

Solicitors:           Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua

R v RAMEKA [2014] NZHC 2662 [29 October 2014]

[1]      Brenda-Lee Rameka, you appear for sentencing today.   You have entered pleas of guilty on one count of kidnapping, being the most serious charge, and additional charges of injuring with intent to injure and threatening to do grievous bodily harm.

[2]      In my sentencing indication of 25 August I set out the relevant facts in the same detail as I would normally in a sentencing report and I do not intend to traverse them in this sentencing this morning.  Rather, I adopt them.

[3]      The sentencing indication was a relatively sophisticated hearing.  I examined a  leading  case  of  Romana  and  Tie  v  R,1   similar  to  these  facts,  and  heard  full argument as to what the starting point should be.  You were a co-offender with your brother, Simon.  I concluded that a starting point should be taken for you akin to a starting point for Mr Tie in the case of Romana of three years three months.  But I took an uplift of three months on the view that you had triggered off this offending. Your brother, Simon, had been trying to collect some money off you and you said the victim had stolen them.  At that time I was of the view that that was an aggravating

feature and so I lifted the three-year, three-month period relying on Tie’s sentence in Romana to three years six months.  I gave you a 10 per cent discount for your guilty plea, taking you back to three years two months.

[4]      Today in argument your counsel, Mr Balme, argued that he had not made enough of the aggravating feature in regards to Simon when Simon used scissors or secateurs, pressing the blades into the victim’s hand and drawing blood.  But, on the other hand, at the time you were threatening to cut the victim’s tongue out and her eyes and kicked her in the head.

[5]      I have reached the conclusion that I am not changing that end result of three years two months.  You have spent nine months on bail on restrictive conditions and I would normally confine to your property.   This is akin to home detention and I would normally give a discount of 4.5 months in this regard.

[6]      Ms Tahana, for the Crown, has argued that I should not do so because of two breaches.  On one occasion you were found not on the property.  Your explanation was that you had gone out to get some food and on the second occasion you did not present to the door.  Ms Tahana has referred to the Court of Appeal decision in  R v Maka Tuikolovatu2 where the Court of Appeal approved the District Court Judge not granting a credit for restrictive bail conditions because the offender had been absent from the address on at least three occasions, on one of which he had forged a doctor’s certificate to evidence his claim that he had left to attend a medical centre.  I

do not know anything more about the facts than that but certainly those breaches, including the forging of the doctor’s certificate, appear on the face of it to be far more serious than here.

[7]      I have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and to give you the 4½ months credit.   That reduces the sentence indication to 33½ months, which I will round down to 33 months.

[8]      I then turn to the question as to whether or not you should get credit for your efforts to rehabilitate yourself.  The Crown agrees that you should get some credit and leaves it to me to make a judgment on that.

[9]      Ms Rameka, I have been impressed by the support you have received from the Alcohol and Drug Counselling Service and from three other significant persons in the community.  I am going to respect their privacy in that regard.  But they are people holding positions in the community from where they have seen relatively first-hand your efforts to rehabilitate yourself.   I have also read the letters from members of your family and friends and your own letter.

[10]     You have attended various courses, including Family Focused Parenting, and I am satisfied that you are trying to rehabilitate yourself and to making your life. You are a mother of young children who, I am sure, you love and must know that you have to be there for them.  Not in jail.  However, this is a very serious offence and there is no basis, because of the seriousness of the offence and your offending, for me to avoid a jail sentence for you.  I am, however, going to give you a further

discount of six  months for your efforts to rehabilitate yourself.   That  takes the sentence to two years three months imprisonment.

[11]     I sentence you to two years three months imprisonment on the lead count of kidnapping;  on  the  injuring  with  intent  to  injure,  a  concurrent  sentence  of  six months;  and  on  threatening  to  kill  and  do  grievous  bodily  harm,  a  concurrent sentence of four months.

[12]     You have accumulated fines of $7,083.12.  So far as I can see, most if not all are for traffic-related offences.  I am tempted not to remit them but, again, conscious of the letters of support from the community and the efforts that you have made and, I think, your growing maturity, I am on this occasion going to cancel those fines in the hope that you can come out of prison and start a new life with the support of your family.  I am very pleased to see that they are present here today to support you.

[13]     That completes my sentencing.  Madam Registrar, I will retire.