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…

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 [2014] NZHC 2662
Case: [2014] NZHC 2662
Decision Date: 29 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, the case of The Queen v Brenda-Lee Rameka was heard for sentencing on 29 October 2014. Brenda-Lee Rameka, who had entered pleas of guilty to charges of kidnapping, injuring with intent to injure, and threatening to do grievous bodily harm, appeared for sentencing. The court needed to determine an appropriate sentence taking into account the severity of the offences, Rameka's role as a co-offender, her guilty plea, and her efforts at rehabilitation.

The court examined the facts of the case, drawing on precedents such as Romana and Tie v R, and considered arguments regarding the appropriate starting point for sentencing. It was determined that a starting point of three years and six months was appropriate, adjusted for Rameka's role as the instigator and her guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of three years and two months. Despite arguments for additional penalties due to breaches of bail conditions, the court opted to give Rameka credit for her efforts to rehabilitate herself, reducing the sentence to two years and three months. The court also took into account the support from community and family, and the serious nature of the offences, ultimately deciding to cancel accumulated fines in the hope that Rameka could start a new life upon her release.

The final orders of the court were that Brenda-Lee Rameka was sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment for the charge of kidnapping, with concurrent sentences of six months for injuring with intent to injure and four months for threatening to kill and do grievous bodily harm. Additionally, the accumulated fines amounting to $7,083.12 were cancelled, reflecting the court's consideration of Rameka's rehabilitation efforts and community support.

Orders