R v Ratima - [2019] NZHC 1586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-044-4320

[2019] NZHC 1586

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES KINGI RATIMA

Hearing: 9 July 2019

Appearances:

S Teppett for Crown

P Hamlin and S Vincent for Defendant

Judgment:

9 July 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v RATIMA [2019] NZHC 1586 [9 July 2019]

[1] Mr Ratima, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure.1 The maximum penalty for that charge is five years imprisonment.

[2] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of a summary of facts that you accept. This records that you are currently a sentenced prisoner. You are serving a sentence of ten years imprisonment imposed on 23 February 2017 on a charge of robbery involving assault. You are required to serve a minimum term of five years before being eligible to apply for parole on that sentence.

The charge

[3] On 16 May 2018 you were housed in the special needs unit of the Auckland Prison at Paremoremo. At about 11 am that day, you were involved in a serious assault of another prisoner. This prisoner had gone to the Top East landing grille to collect tea and hot water from a Corrections Officer on the other side of the grille. Without any form of warning you approached this prisoner from behind. You ran a short distance before jumping in the air and kicking the prisoner in the back of the head with your right foot. The blow struck him in the head with considerable force. It caused his head to smash violently against the grille before he fell to the ground. As a result of the incident the prisoner suffered a fracture of his left cheek bone and left jaw, as well as a laceration to his left eyebrow.

Starting point

[4] The starting point to be applied to this charge falls to be determined in accordance with several Court of Appeal authorities, including Nuku v R and R v Taueki.2 The most obvious aggravating factors here are the fact that you struck a forcible blow to the back of the victim’s head. He was in a vulnerable position at that time because he could not see you coming. As a result, he could take no evasive action or take any steps to defend himself against, or prepare himself for, the blow that he received. The injuries the victim suffered were significant, although it appears they are unlikely to be of long-lasting effect.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2)
2 Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584; [2013] 2 NZLR 39; R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).

[5] The authorities that counsel have counsel have referred to suggest a starting point of between two years and two years seven months imprisonment.3 Ordinarily, having regard to the aggravating features I have identified, I would select a starting point of two years two months imprisonment.

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 Ratima

Details

AGLC: R v Ratima [2019] NZHC 1586
Case: [2019] NZHC 1586
Decision Date: 9 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, handed down sentencing remarks in the case of the Queen versus James Kingi Ratima on July 9, 2019. Ratima appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure, with the maximum penalty being five years imprisonment. The defendant was already serving a sentence of ten years imprisonment for robbery involving assault, with a minimum term of five years before being eligible to apply for parole.

The court had to determine the starting point for the sentence, considering several aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the defendant's violent attack on a vulnerable victim and the defendant's history of violent offending. Mitigating factors included the defendant's early guilty plea and the benefit of the reduced charge, which resulted in a discount of five months on the sentence.

The court determined a starting point of 20 months imprisonment, reduced by six months due to the defendant's psychiatric conditions and benzodiazepine withdrawal. The court then applied an uplift of two months for the defendant's history of violent offending, resulting in a sentence of 22 months imprisonment. The court allowed a discount of five months for the defendant's early guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of 17 months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence for robbery.

In conclusion, the defendant was sentenced to 17 months imprisonment for the charge of injuring with intent to injure, to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence for robbery. The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the final sentence, taking into account the defendant's psychiatric conditions and history of violent offending.

Orders