Legal Research
Cases
R v Richards

R v Richards

Case [2023] NZHC 3625 11 December 2023

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Reckless Intent

Excessive Self-Defence

Vicarious Liability

Sentencing

Rehabilitation Prospects

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2022-075-000367

[2023] NZHC 3625

THE KING

v

JOEY MATARONGIA RICHARDS

Hearing: 11 December 2023

Appearances:

R Guthrie for the Crown

C W J Stevenson & E I Haronga for the Defendant

Sentencing:

11 December 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF TAHANA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2023

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Pipitea Chambers, Wellington

R v RICHARDS (Sentencing notes) [2023] NZHC 3625 [11 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Joey Richards you appear for sentencing today having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of your brother, Guy Richards. You will also be sentenced for one charge of dangerous driving,12 you pleaded guilty to that charge at the start of the trial.

[2] Before I start, ka huri ahau ki te reo rangatira. Ki a rātou ki a wehe atu ki te po, ki tāu teina, a, Guy, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. Hoki atu rā ki Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pamamao. Ki te whānau pani, ka nui te aroha ki a koutou i tēnei wā pouri. Ma te korowai aroha e manaaki e tiaki i a koutou. Tēnā rā koutou.

[3] I acknowledge, in our language, the passing of your younger brother Guy. May he return to Hawaiki with his ancestors. To the grieving whānau, may you be embraced in aroha to enable you to navigate the grief of the passing of a loved one. I acknowledge you all here today.

[4] I also acknowledge the victim impact statements from Guy’s former partner and two of his siblings. They describe the effect of Guy’s passing on his tamariki (children), who are struggling. They are now fatherless. Your siblings have also indicated that they forgive you.

[5] Before I determine an appropriate sentence, I will outline what happened based on the evidence that I heard at the trial.

What happened?

[6] Your mother passed away in March 2022. Your whānau gathered in Manaia at your marae for her tangihanga. On the day of her nehu (burial), after leaving the marae, some of your whānau and friends gathered at your whare (home) further up the hill above the marae and had some drinks. Some, including you, stayed up all night drinking.

1 The maximum penalty for dangerous driving is three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine. It also carries a mandatory disqualification from driving for at least six months under the Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).

[7] While your brother Guy had been there in the evening, he had gone home. He returned the next morning. You and a few others were still there drinking and were very intoxicated. Guy went to the marae for breakfast and then returned to your whare. You were angry with Guy because you did not think he had helped out enough during the tangi. You were verbally abusing him and then started pushing him.…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2023] NZHC 3625
Case: [2023] NZHC 3625
Decision Date: 11 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joey Matarongi Richards was sentenced by Justice Tahana in the High Court of New Zealand for the murder of his brother, Guy Richards, and a charge of dangerous driving. The court found Richards guilty of murder with reckless intent and guilty by plea of dangerous driving. The case involved a family dispute that escalated after Richards' mother's burial, leading to a physical altercation between the brothers. Richards followed Guy in his car, armed with a knife, and stabbed him, resulting in Guy's death. Richards also attempted suicide by driving off a steep hill after the incident.

The court considered several legal issues, including the appropriate sentence for murder and whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of no less than 10 years, unless it would be manifestly unjust. Richards' counsel argued that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust due to his personal circumstances and the context of the offence. The court examined the circumstances of the offending, including Richards' intoxication, emotional state, and background of poverty and substance abuse. It also considered his genuine remorse, participation in restorative justice, and strong rehabilitation prospects.

Justice Tahana concluded that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust due to the unique circumstances of the case. Instead, Richards was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of seven years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for accountability, deterrence, and community protection. Richards was also sentenced to two months' imprisonment for dangerous driving, to be served concurrently, and disqualified from driving for six months. All outstanding fines were dismissed.

Orders