Legal Research
Cases
R v Richardson

R v Richardson

Case [2024] NZHC 1795 3 July 2024

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-009-10302

[2024] NZHC 1795

THE KING

v

KIA-ARA RICHARDSON

Hearing: 3 July 2024

Appearances:

A R McRae and N Girgis for Crown

R G Glover and A C Kelland for Defendant

Judgment:

3 July 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Kia-Ara Richardson, you are for sentence this morning having been found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Mr Hemi.

Facts

[2]You began a relationship with Mr Hemi in July 2019.

[3] On 8 November 2019, after attending a party, you and Mr Hemi returned to the address where the two of you were living together. The teenage daughters of the occupant of that house were hosting a party in the backyard. The two of you went to your bedroom and witnesses reported you were happy together.

[4] It appears Mr Hemi was invited to another party. An argument developed between the two of you which played out on the street. This was captured by two

R v RICHARDSON [2024] NZHC 1795 [3 July 2024]

witnesses from a nearby address on their cell phones after their attention was drawn to the disturbance. The two of you were yelling abuse at each other, as each of you moved up and down the street. Mr Hemi was trying to get the keys to the car that was parked on the road, but you were refusing to provide them. The videos show you and Mr Hemi circling the vehicle and the two of you advancing and retreating from each other on the street outside the address while abusing and yelling at each other. There was evidence from one witness of the two of you, at one stage, being in the front of the vehicle when Mr Hemi punched you a number of times. There is also evidence of Mr Hemi getting out of the vehicle and you following him, before he returns to the car and verbally abuses you.

[5] The final sequence involves Mr Hemi getting into the driver’s seat. You can be seen opening the boot of the car before entering the back of the vehicle through the rear passenger side door. The two of you can be heard continuing to argue. Mr Hemi then got out of the vehicle, closed the boot, and yelled at you to “fuck off” before getting back into the driver’s seat. He is then heard yelling such things at you as “fuck off or get in”. You appear to have the rear door open, and he can be heard yelling “get out of my face bitch!” before a brief period of silence.

[6] It is plain that at this point, while Mr Hemi was positioned in the driver’s seat and you in the rear of the vehicle, that you stabbed Mr Hemi in the neck at the base of his skull. You can then be seen, seconds later, exiting the vehicle, slamming the door and then…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: R v Richardson [2024] NZHC 1795
Case: [2024] NZHC 1795
Decision Date: 3 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kia-Ara Richardson was found guilty of manslaughter for the stabbing death of Mr Hemi. The incident occurred after an argument escalated into a physical altercation. Richardson stabbed Mr Hemi in the neck while he was in the driver's seat of a parked car, leading to his death. Richardson denied causing the fatal wound, claiming it was self-inflicted, but the jury rejected this defence.

The court needed to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing and assess the various mitigating and aggravating factors. The Crown argued for a starting point of eight to nine years' imprisonment, considering the use of a lethal weapon, the vulnerable position of the attack, and the serious consequences. Richardson's counsel proposed a lower starting point of three and a half to four and a half years. The court identified multiple aggravating factors, including the use of a knife, the location of the stab wound, and the element of surprise, leading to a starting point of seven years and six months' imprisonment.

After considering personal mitigating factors such as Richardson's youth, lack of prior convictions, and her role as a primary caregiver for her young son, the court applied an overall discount of 15%. Additionally, the court took into account the extensive time Richardson spent on electronically monitored bail, resulting in a 35% credit. The final sentence was four years and three months' imprisonment, with no order for a minimum term of imprisonment.

The court ordered that Richardson be imprisoned for four years and three months for the manslaughter of Peter Hemi.

Orders