Legal Research
Cases
R v Rawhiti

R v Rawhiti

Case [2023] NZHC 2068 4 August 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2020-092-11035

[2023] NZHC 2068

THE KING

v

HAMUERA RAWHITI

Hearing: 4 August 2023

Appearances:

G Kayes and A Al-Janabi for the Crown

J Kincade KC and T Braithwaite for the defendant

Judgment:

4 August 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

R v RAWHITI [2023] NZHC 2068 [4 August 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Rawhiti, you pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your infant son Clarity.1 After a trial in this Court, a jury acquitted you of a charge of murdering Clarity. You also pleaded guilty, in a separate District Court proceeding, to a representative charge of male assaults female,2 and a representative charge of injuring with intent to injure.3 That offending was against Lani Turu, the mother of Clarity.

[2] My job today, on behalf of the community, is to sentence you for your offending.

[3] Before I do so, I acknowledge Ms Turu and her and Clarity’s whānau, many of whom are here in court. I will say more about how your offending has affected Ms Turu and her whānau once I have described your offending. I also acknowledge your whānau and supporters who are here with you this morning.

Facts

[4] I am going to start by describing your offending. Although your offending against Ms Turu was less serious than your offending against Clarity, I am going to start with your offending against Ms Turu because that happened first. I am sorry to you and to others here for the pain that you may feel in hearing what I am about to say about your offending. Sentencing is a public process and it is therefore something that I have to do.

[5] In June 2019, you began a relationship with Ms Turu. Not long after this, Ms Turu moved to Auckland and began living with you.

The offending against Lani Turu

[6] In relation to your offending against Ms Turu, you pleaded guilty on the basis of agreed facts. I will now summarise those facts.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 177. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194. Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.

[7] About a month after you and Ms Turu began living together, you had an argument with Ms Turu in which you accused her of sleeping with someone else. You punched Ms Turu in the head, yelled at her to pick up bottles you had smashed during the argument and threatened to beat her up if she did not do as you said.

[8] From that point on, you and Ms Turu argued regularly. In October or November 2019, one of those arguments became physical. You pushed and pulled Ms Turu around the house. You rammed her head into a wardrobe door in the lounge. You stomped on her head when she was on the floor. Ms Turu covered her head…

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 Rawhiti

Details

AGLC: R v Rawhiti [2023] NZHC 2068
Case: [2023] NZHC 2068
Decision Date: 4 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hamuera Rawhiti pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his infant son, Clarity, and to charges of injuring with intent to injure and male assaults female against Clarity's mother, Lani Turu. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, sentenced Rawhiti for these offences. The primary legal issues were to determine an appropriate starting point for the sentences and to adjust that starting point based on various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court assessed the seriousness of Rawhiti's offending, noting the extreme violence he used against Clarity, who was only five-and-a-half months old at the time of the assault. The court compared Rawhiti's case to other manslaughter cases to determine an appropriate starting point, ultimately setting it at 11 years' imprisonment. For the charges against Lani Turu, the court considered the extreme and unprovoked nature of the violence, leading to a starting point of four years' imprisonment. Taking into account the totality of the offending, the court set an overall starting point at 13 years' imprisonment.

The court then made several adjustments to this starting point. Rawhiti received credit for his guilty pleas, with a 20% discount for the manslaughter charge and a 10% discount for the charges against Lani Turu. The court also considered Rawhiti's remorse and his dysfunctional upbringing, granting a 5% and a 10% discount, respectively. Additionally, Rawhiti received credit for the nine months he spent on electronically monitored bail, resulting in a further reduction. After applying these adjustments, the court sentenced Rawhiti to eight years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of Clarity, three years for injuring with intent to injure, and one year for male assaults female, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Rawhiti was to serve a total of eight years' imprisonment for his convictions.

Orders