R v Te Hei - [2016] NZHC 1538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2014-016-1983 [2016] NZHC 1538

THE QUEEN

v

WARREN CHARLES TE HEI

Hearing: 7 July 2016

Appearances:

C R Walker for Crown
S Jefferson for Defendant

Sentenced:

7 July 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF CLARK J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Gisborne, for Crown
Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Defendant

R v WARREN CHARLES TE HEI [2016] NZHC 1538 [7 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Hei, you appear for sentence having been found guilty at trial on two charges: wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,1 which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment, and assault with intent to injure.2 The maximum sentence for the charge of assault with intent to injure is three years imprisonment.

Background

[2] You were living in Wairoa in August 2014. You were a patched member of the Mongrel Mob gang although you had been previously a patched member of the Aotearoa Chapter. In the early evening of 8 August 2014 you were involved in a fight with the President of the Aotearoa Chapter and it seems you got the better of the President. You and your partner then immediately travelled to Gisborne in a vehicle driven by a cousin of your partner. You took with you in the vehicle a large machete.

[3] You had the driver go to an address and when the vehicle was parked in the driveway you got out. It seems that you misinterpreted some drunken behaviour on the part of a female friend of the victim as abuse directed at you.

[4] You retrieved the machete from the vehicle and attacked the victim in the driveway. You hit her a number of times in the face with either your fist or the handle of the machete and struck at her head with the machete blade. She held her left arm up to protect herself and received three wounds to her left hand and wrist. She also received bruising and swelling to the left side of her face.

[5] The cousin intervened and took the machete from you and you then got back into the vehicle and left the scene.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 193.

Sentencing Act 2002

[6] In a case involving violence of this severity the purposes of deterrence and denunciation are particularly important. The sentence must hold you responsible for your actions and deter you and others from similar behaviour in the future.

[7] I must also have regard for the effect of the offending on the victim. The victim says that the entire event — the attack as well as the trial — has had a huge impact on her life. Physical effects remain years after the incident. Her eye has been damaged and her hand is visibly scarred. She finds herself reliving the incident all the time and she lives in fear that this is not over and that you may kill her or hurt her family.

[8] There are…

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 [2016] NZHC 1538
Case: [2016] NZHC 1538
Decision Date: 7 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warren Charles Te Hei was found guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assault with intent to injure. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences, specifically whether a finite sentence or an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention should be imposed. The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the offending, the offender's history of violence, and the risk of reoffending. The court determined that an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention was appropriate due to the offender's history of violent offending, the seriousness of the harm caused, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court sentenced the offender to preventive detention with a minimum term of five years on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and two years imprisonment to be served concurrently on the charge of assault with intent to injure.

The court found that the offender had a history of serious violent offending, including attempted murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. The court also found that the offender had a high risk of reoffending and that a lengthy determinate sentence would not adequately protect the community. The court considered reports from health assessors and the Department of Corrections, which indicated that the offender had a high risk of reoffending and that there was a failure to address the causes of the offending. The court concluded that preventive detention was necessary to protect the community from the offender's further offending.

Orders