R v Te Hei - [2017] NZHC 1744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2015-020-003175 [2017] NZHC 1744

THE QUEEN

v

WARREN CHARLES TE HEI

Hearing: 26 July 2017

Appearances:

J Rielly for the Crown
C J Tennet and M Houra for the Defendant

Sentencing:

26 July 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms J Rielly, Crown Solicitor’s Office, Napier
C J Tennet, Wellington

R v TE HEI [2017] NZHC 1744 [26 July 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Hei, you appear for sentence having been found guilty at trial of one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 This crime carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

[2] As you know, you appear in this court because preventive detention is an available sentence.

Factual background

The current offending

[3] The offending took place while you and the victim were inmates in Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison. On the morning of 19 September 2015 you and other inmates were free to walk around the facility.

[4] You attacked the victim in a corridor. At the time of the attack, he was dressed in a towel and carrying toilet paper in both hands. You struck the victim in the neck, upper torso, and head, and pushed his face into the concrete wall. You then straddled his body and punched him in the head. You continued to punch the victim in the head at least two to three times once correction officers had arrived before obeying instructions to stop.

[5] The complainant was taken to hospital in a semi-conscious state. As a result of the assault he suffered multiple fractures to his jaw. He required surgery to his face which required insertion of multiple plates and screws.

[6] At trial, you gave evidence that the attack was a pre-emptive strike in self- defence. You say you were challenged to a fight by the victim due to efforts you had made to renounce your gang affiliation, and that you feared you would be attacked by multiple prisoners if you did not strike first. Further, you gave evidence that you and the victim were wrestling. However, you acknowledged repeatedly striking the
victim, and clearly your claim of self-defence was rejected by the jury.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).

Personal circumstances

[7] I turn now to your personal circumstances. You are a 46-year-old man of Ngāti Kahungunu descent. You were raised by your grandparents, although you spent time in youth facilities. Unfortunately, you have spent the majority of your adult life imprisoned, with a long history of offending. Much of this appears to be gang-related. You have been affiliated with the Mongrel Mob since you were around
15. You became a patched member of the Mongrel Mob in around 2000. You have previously been a patched member of its Aotearoa chapter.

[8] You report that your offending began when you were aged around 10, when you were involved in burglaries with older relatives. Your first convictions came at the age of 15. You have…

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 Te Hei

Details

AGLC: R v Te Hei [2017] NZHC 1744
Case: [2017] NZHC 1744
Decision Date: 26 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Warren Charles Te Hei appeared for sentencing following his conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offence and Te Hei's criminal history, which included multiple convictions for violent offences. The central issue was whether a finite sentence was sufficient or if preventive detention was warranted, given Te Hei's history of gang-related violence and his risk of reoffending.

The court assessed the aggravating factors of the crime, including premeditation, attack on the head, extreme violence, and serious injury. After considering the starting point for the sentence and adjusting it for Te Hei's personal circumstances and culpability, the court set a starting point of six years imprisonment. An uplift was applied for his history of serious violence and the prison setting, resulting in a total finite sentence of six years and nine months imprisonment.

Regarding preventive detention, the court examined reports from health professionals who assessed Te Hei's risk of reoffending. While Te Hei had a history of serious offending, the court found that he was not likely to reoffend violently outside of gang-related situations. The court considered his efforts to disengage from gang life and his positive engagement with the community post-release from prison. Ultimately, the court decided against imposing a second term of preventive detention, concluding that a finite sentence was appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that Te Hei would serve a finite sentence of six years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The court also set aside a second-strike warning given in error, leaving in place the first-strike warning.

Orders