Legal Research
Cases
R v Renata

R v Renata

Case [2022] NZHC 2745 13 October 2022

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Injunction

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-087-000434

[2022] NZHC 2745

THE QUEEN

v

KAYLEB RENATA ROGER TUTAKANGAHAU

Hearing: 13 October 2022

Appearances:

D J McWilliam for Crown

R O Gowing for Kayleb Renata
W T Nabney for Roger Tutakangahau

Sentence:

13 October 2022

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Gowing & Co., Whakatane

R v KAYLEB RENATA & ANOR [2022] NZHC 2745 [13 October 2022]

Introduction

[1] Kayleb Renata, at 18 years old, you appear before the Court today for sentence having been found guilty of the murder of Jamaine Wharton.1

[2] Roger Tutakangahau, at 28 years old, you appear today for sentence having been found guilty on one charge of manslaughter,2 also relating to the death of Jamaine Wharton.

[3] There are a large number of Jamaine Wharton’s immediate and extended family present in Court today, including those who have courageously presented their victim impact statements in which they expressed their heartfelt grief at the loss of a much-loved family member, and I commence my sentencing remarks today by extending the Court’s sincere sympathy to Jamaine’s family for their sad loss. There are of course no words to relieve the pain of your loss, however the sentencing and the imprisonment of those found to be responsible for Jamaine’s death will to an extent at least enable you to put this phase of the process behind you which has been a gruelling one for all of you who have been present here during the trial and have listened to evidence which has no doubt been distressing to you. So this process today puts an end to that and will enable you to move forward to deal with this in your own private way that you will need to cope with the loss of Jamaine for the remainder of your lives.

[4] Mr Renata, the sentence I shall impose upon you today will be one of life imprisonment. That is the sentence that must be imposed for murder, unless it would be manifestly unjust to impose that sentence upon you.3 Crown counsel and your own counsel agree that a sentence of life imprisonment would not be unjust in your case and that is the sentence I shall impose on you. The principal issue I must decide is the number of years that you must serve your life sentence for before you will become eligible for parole. This is called the minimum period of imprisonment or “MPI”. Your counsel Mr Gowing, and Crown counsel both agree that an MPI of 10 years is appropriate in your case.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172: carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2      Sections 171 and 177: carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

[5] Mr Tutakangahau, Mr Nabney on your behalf submits that a starting point of five years’ imprisonment is appropriate in terms of the sentence to be imposed…

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 Renata

Details

AGLC: R v Renata [2022] NZHC 2745
Case: [2022] NZHC 2745
Decision Date: 13 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The sentencing hearing took place in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, before Justice Paul Davison. Kayleb Renata was convicted of murder and Roger Tutakangahau was convicted of manslaughter, both in relation to the death of Jamaine Wharton. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentences for both Renata and Tutakangahau. The legal issues included whether a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust for Renata, and the starting point for Tutakangahau's sentence. The court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing, including holding the offenders accountable, denouncing the conduct, deterring others, protecting the community, and assisting in rehabilitation. In sentencing Renata, the court found that a sentence of life imprisonment would not be manifestly unjust. The court considered Renata's youth, his turbulent upbringing, and the absence of mitigating factors in his offending. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years before Renata would be eligible for parole. For Tutakangahau, the court assessed his culpability by reference to comparable cases involving manslaughter and found that a starting point of six and a half years' imprisonment was appropriate. The court allowed a discount of 15% on the starting point, resulting in a sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment for Tutakangahau. The final orders were that Renata would serve a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years, and Tutakangahau would serve a sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment.

Orders