[1] Mr Rapana, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one count of murder1 and one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2

[2] When a person is convicted of murder, both the Crimes Act and the Sentencing Act require that they be sentenced to life imprisonment, unless there are special circumstances which mean that a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.3 The maximum penalty for wounding with intent, on the other hand, is 14 years imprisonment.4

Facts

[3] For sentencing purposes I rely on the summary of facts that has been agreed between you and the Crown.

[4] At about 12:30am on Sunday 21 December 2014, you and your wife were at a 21st birthday party at the home address of Rio Davis, in Otara. His cousin, Chevy Davis, was also at the address.

[5] Your wife was standing by a stereo at the rear of the address where most of the people at the party were congregating. She kept changing the music, which annoyed some other people at the party, including Rio and Chevy Davis. Chevy Davis walked up to your wife and confronted her about changing the music. A heated argument ensued. You saw the confrontation and approached Chevy Davis to try and calm the situation down. At that point Rio Davis grabbed you from behind in a headlock and the two of you struggled.

[6] The altercation between you and Rio Davis escalated, with other party goers becoming involved. The confrontation between your wife and Chevy Davis also turned physical, with Chevy Davis punching her in the head several times, which
you saw. Chevy Davis was clearly angry towards your wife and was therefore

1      Pursuant to s 167 of the Crimes Act 1961.
2      Pursuant to s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
3      Crimes Act, s 172 and Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.
4      Section 188(1).

restrained by other party goers and taken to the front of the property, away from your wife.

[7] The altercation at the rear of the property continued. You stabbed Rio Davis several times with a hunting knife that you had brought to the property. Those at the front of the property became aware that Rio Davis had been stabbed. On hearing this, they let go of Chevy Davis who ran towards the rear of the property. He encountered you and, after a confrontation, you fatally stabbed him. Witnesses observed you to be in an angry state at the time.

[8] After stabbing both Rio Davis and Chevy Davis, you, your wife and another person ran to your vehicle and…

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 Rapana

Details

AGLC: R v Rapana [2015] NZHC 3331
Case: [2015] NZHC 3331
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rapana was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. Robert Timothy Rapana pleaded guilty to one count of murder and one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to determine whether a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust and, if not, what the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment should be.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the circumstances of the offence were exceptional enough to warrant a finding that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust and, if not, what the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment should be. The court had to consider the degree of provocation, self-defence, and the extent of the harm caused by the offender.

The court found that while there were elements of provocation and self-defence present, they did not reach the exceptional threshold required to deem a life sentence manifestly unjust. The court noted that the use of a weapon and the disproportionate response to the situation warranted a sentence of life imprisonment. The minimum period of imprisonment was set at ten years six months, taking into account the aggravating factors such as the use of a weapon and the harm caused, as well as mitigating factors like the offender's remorse and guilty plea. An uplift of 18 months was added for the wounding charge, and a discount of six months for remorse and one year for the guilty plea was applied, resulting in a total minimum term of imprisonment of ten years six months.

The final orders of the court were that Rapana was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of Chevy Davis, with a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years six months. On the charge of wounding Rio Davis with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

Orders