[1] Rachel Ann Rihia, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty shortly before trial to the murder of your estranged husband, Joseph Tom Rihia, by stabbing him at your home in Auckland on 13 April 2010.

[2] You had been in a domestic relationship with Mr Rihia since 1998, and married since 2002, although it appears that you had living apart for about a year before Mr Rihia’s death. The principal relevant features of your relationship, apart from your three children, were widespread alcohol abuse by both of you and considerable violence.

[3] It is against that background, which I will discuss more fully in a moment, that Mr Lawry has submitted on your behalf that I should treat your case as one of those exceptional cases in which a term of life imprisonment should not be imposed.

[4] It is important that I acknowledge the presence in Court of members of Mr Rihia’s family. I assure the family members present that, in coming to my view as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed in this tragic and difficult case, I have had regard to the statements which have been given to me by family representatives, including two sisters, a brother, three daughters, a son and Mr Rihia's former wife, the mother of six of his children. They have spoken also on behalf of Mr Rihia’s grandchildren who will never really know their grandfather. Two family members have spoken eloquently of their loss in Court, and from different perspectives. I have heard what all of you have said and written and you have my deepest sympathy.

[5] It is no surprise that Mr Rihia’s murder has had a significant and lasting effect on the family, and it has divided them. Some family members are angry at you; others are more forgiving; but it is clear that all of them feel profoundly the loss of a father, grandfather and brother. Whatever failings he may have had, and whatever part his actions may have played in the background to this tragedy, Mr Rihia did not deserve to have his life cut short in this way.

[6] One of his sisters has said, however, with commendable restraint, that really this process is about you and that, whatever happens to you, her brother Joe is gone and nothing I decide today will change that.

[7] I turn then to consider what should be done to address your offending. When a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed for murder, the Court must decide what minimum period of imprisonment the prisoner must serve.[1] That is because a person…

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 Rihia

Details

AGLC: R v Rihia [2012] NZHC 2720
Case: [2012] NZHC 2720
Decision Date: 17 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of Rachel Ann Rihia, who pleaded guilty to the murder of her estranged husband, Joseph Tom Rihia, by stabbing him on 13 April 2010. The couple had been in a tumultuous relationship marked by alcohol abuse and violence, which had led to their living apart for about a year before the incident. The immediate cause of the stabbing was an argument over the removal of their seven-year-old daughter by Child, Youth and Family Services due to concerns about alcohol consumption and Joseph's presence at the house. In a fit of rage and influenced by alcohol, Rihia attacked Joseph with knives, resulting in his death.

The legal issues before the court were whether it would be manifestly unjust to sentence Rihia to life imprisonment, given the exceptional circumstances of the case, and if so, what alternative sentence would be appropriate. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, Rihia's personal background, and whether there were mitigating factors that could justify a departure from the usual sentence of life imprisonment for murder.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and the submissions from both the Crown and Rihia's defence, concluded that it would indeed be manifestly unjust to impose a life sentence on Rihia. The court found that Rihia's actions, although heinous, were significantly influenced by her longstanding alcohol abuse and the psychological impact of her violent upbringing and relationship with Joseph. The immediate trigger was the loss of her daughter, which led to an emotional breakdown. The court emphasised that Rihia accepted responsibility for her actions and had pleaded guilty, which was a significant step towards rehabilitation. Considering these factors, the court determined that a finite term of imprisonment was more appropriate.

After taking into account the need for denunciation, deterrence, and community protection, the court decided on a sentence of ten years' imprisonment, with a discount of two years for Rihia's guilty plea. This means she would be eligible for parole after serving three years and four months. The court refrained from imposing a minimum non-parole period, leaving that decision to the Parole Board, which would assess her risk to the community and her progress in rehabilitation.

Orders