Legal Research
Cases
R v Te Huia

R v Te Huia

Case [2018] NZHC 3039 22 November 2018

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

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-2017-019-004897

[2018] NZHC 3039

THE QUEEN

v

STORM TE HUIA

Hearing: 22 November 2018

Appearances:

J Foster for the Crown

T Sutcliffe for the Defendant

Sentenced:

22 November 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Counsel:
T Sutcliffe, Barrister, Hamilton

Solicitors:
J Foster, Almao Douch, Crown Solicitors, Hamilton

R v TE HUIA [2018] NZHC 3039 [22 November 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Huia appears for sentence on one charge of wounding with intent to injure,1 arising out of a violent assault in Te Awamutu. He pleaded guilty to the current charge five days before the start of his trial on 23 July 2017.

[2] An unusual and tragic feature of this case is that the victim, Mr Hallmond, died shortly after the assault. Mr Te Huia was initially charged with murder. However, the Crown ultimately withdrew that charge, and substituted the current charge. That was because two pathologists were unable authoritatively to identify the cause of death. The Crown could not, therefore, establish a sufficient causative link between Mr Te Huia’s actions and the victim’s death to support a charge of murder. For this reason, and despite the understandable sentiments expressed in various of the victim impact statements from relatives, who in their mind regard the assault and Mr Hallmond’s death as linked, for the purposes of sentencing Mr Te Huia I must exclude from my mind any such link.

[3] I appreciate that this position will inevitably invoke feelings of injustice on the part of Mr Hallmond’s relatives. However, I am sure they will appreciate that were any of them charged with the death of another they too would require the strongest proof that their actions were responsible for the crime for which they stood trial.

Background

[4] In June 2016, Mr Te Huia, the victim, Mr Hallmond, and another person were present in a house in Te Awamutu. The police came to the house to do a bail check on one of the occupants. While doing so, they found Mr Te Huia to be in possession of a stolen motorcycle, drugs and drug paraphernalia. He was charged with several offences, convicted and imprisoned for a five-month period.

[5] Mr Te Huia blamed the victim for this arrest, believing him to be a police informant. He made a subsequent post on the victim’s Facebook site suggesting the victim’s days were numbered, and that “narks can eat shit”.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.

[6] Nevertheless, in July 2017 the victim arranged to do a drug deal with the defendant at the defendant’s house, the victim’s intention being to sell the defendant half a gram of methamphetamine. The defendant’s intention meanwhile (so he told a female associate), was to take the methamphetamine without paying the victim for it, as revenge for the victim having allegedly “narked” on him.

[7] The victim duly came to the house, and when the…

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 Huia

Details

AGLC: R v Te Huia [2018] NZHC 3039
Case: [2018] NZHC 3039
Decision Date: 22 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Storm Te Huia faced sentencing on a charge of wounding with intent to injure, arising from a violent assault in Te Awamutu. The victim, Mr. Hallmond, died shortly after the assault, leading to the withdrawal of the initial murder charge. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the charge of wounding with intent to injure, considering the circumstances of the assault and the offender’s background. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the nature of the offence and the offender's personal circumstances, as well as the discount for the offender's guilty plea. The court found that the assault involved extreme violence, targeting the victim's head, and occurred in the context of a larger premeditated plan, leading to serious injury. The court also noted the offender's limited history of violence but significant escalation in this instance. Considering these factors, along with the offender's personal circumstances and the late guilty plea, the court sentenced Mr. Te Huia to two years and nine months' imprisonment. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment, leaving the offender's release to the discretion of the Parole Board.

Orders