R v Ratima - [2017] NZHC 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-019-002881 [2017] NZHC 252

THE QUEEN

v

KINGI RATIMA

Hearing: 23 February 2017

Appearances:

D McWilliam and S Gilbert for the Crown
A-M Beveridge for the Defendant

Sentence:

23 February 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel; A-M Beveridge, Hamilton

R v RATIMA [2017] NZHC 252 [23 February 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Ratima, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] Mr Ratima, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty on 2 December

2016 to one charge of robbery.1 You have previously received stage-one and stage- two warnings under the “three strikes” regime for serious violent offending. This robbery is therefore a stage-three offence and I am required by law to impose the maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.2 Further, I must order you to serve that sentence without parole, unless I am satisfied that, given your circumstances and the circumstances of the offence, it would be manifestly unjust to do so.3 It is that last issue that has been the main focus of submissions today and is the main focus of this judgment.

Factual background

[3] A sentencing Judge would normally begin by setting out the facts of the offending for which the person is to be sentenced. In this case, however, your previous offending is highly relevant to the sentence I must impose today.

[4] On 4 August 2014, you were convicted of one charge of robbery. The offending in question occurred on 14 May 2014. On that occasion, you approached a victim who was seated in a stationary vehicle and demanded his car and phone. When he refused, you forcefully dragged the victim out of the car and onto the road. You got into the car and the victim tried to pull you out. He was unsuccessful and you drove off with the vehicle. The victim did not receive any injuries. You were
25 years old at that time. You received a first warning under the “three strikes”

regime and were sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.4

[5] On 10 June 2015, you were again convicted of robbery. The offending occurred on 25 November 2014. On that occasion, you attempted to take the
victim’s cellphone after the victim declined to give you money. You punched the

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 234; maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86D(2).
3      Section 86D(3).
4      Section 86B(1).

victim in the chest with a closed fist, causing him to fall backwards onto a park bench and under fear of harm the victim handed over money. The victim did not receive any injuries. You were 25 years old at the time. You received a final warning and were required to serve your entire sentence of one year and four months’ imprisonment without parole.5 You also received concurrent sentences of one month’s imprisonment each for two charges of theft.

[6] That brings us to the present offending. In the early hours of…

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 [2017] NZHC 252
Case: [2017] NZHC 252
Decision Date: 23 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ratima, the defendant, Kingi Ratima, was convicted of robbery and faced sentencing under the "three strikes" regime, which mandates a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for stage-three serious violent offenders. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it would be "manifestly unjust" to order Ratima to serve the entire sentence without parole. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the offending, Ratima's personal circumstances, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court noted that Ratima had a history of serious violent offending, with this being his third strike within two years. Despite the gravity of the current offence, which involved significant violence and an unprovoked attack, the court found that a sentence of 10 years without parole would be grossly disproportionate given Ratima’s personal circumstances and the lack of prior opportunities for meaningful rehabilitation. The court acknowledged Ratima's extensive criminal history and mental health issues, but concluded that these factors, along with his relatively young age and the short time since his last release from prison, pointed towards a finding of manifest injustice. Consequently, the court determined that an alternative sentence was warranted.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years, allowing Ratima the opportunity to engage in rehabilitative programs. The court also recommended that Ratima undertake alcohol and drug counselling and anger management as part of his sentence. This decision balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the objectives of the "three strikes" legislation and the potential for Ratima's rehabilitation.

Orders