R v TH - [2023] NZHC 630

INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS UNTIL 31 MARCH 2023, OR UNTIL RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, OR UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2021-088-1433

[2023] NZHC 630

THE KING

v

TH HH

Hearing: 24 March 2023

Counsel:

M B Smith for Crown

A J Maxwell-Scott for TH T J Buckley for HH

Sentenced:

24 March 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Whangarei) for Crown S R Lack and A J Maxwell-Scott (Auckland) for TH
Ron Mansfield KC and Tiffany Buckley (Auckland) for HH

R v TH & HH [2023] NZHC 630 [24 March 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr TH, the jury found you guilty of the charge of murder and the charge of assault with a weapon. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for assault with a weapon is five years’ imprisonment. Mr HH, you pleaded guilty to one charge of injuring with intent to injure. The maximum penalty for that crime is five years’ imprisonment. My task is to sentence you both on your respective charges.

[2] First, I acknowledge the whanau and friends of Haze Peihopa. I have read a lot about him. I did not know him. Everything I have read tells me that he was a good man. It is a tragedy he was killed in this way. Mr TH, you heard some of the victim impact statements this morning read by people who are grieving and angry at the loss of their loved one. You are responsible.

[3] I say to the whanau and friends of Mr Peihopa, echoing what Mr Smith said, that as a Judge I know that nothing I can do today will come close to compensating for Haze’s death. That would be impossible. My job is simply to apply the law. I do not make the law and I am bound by it. I hope you all understand that.

[4] The sentencing is going to take some time. There are two reasons for that. The first, Mr TH and Mr HH, is that I am not just talking to you. I am talking to a wider audience of your family, Mr Peihopa’s family, other lawyers and, possibly, other Judges. So, I cannot just tell you what your sentences are. The second reason that I am going to have to take quite a long time relates to you, Mr TH. Your sentencing was originally scheduled for 2 February 2023. I had to adjourn the sentencing because on 27 January 2023 the Court of Appeal changed the law on sentencing of young people for murder. The case is R v Dickey.1 You see, prior to that decision the law was that a person in your position would be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. That is because…

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 TH

Details

AGLC: R v TH [2023] NZHC 630
Case: [2023] NZHC 630
Decision Date: 24 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with sentencing two defendants, TH and HH, who were involved in a fatal altercation resulting in the death of Haze Peihopa. TH was found guilty of murder and assault with a weapon, while HH pleaded guilty to injuring with intent. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for both defendants, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court carefully considered the circumstances of the crime, the backgrounds of the defendants, and the legal principles applicable to sentencing young offenders. It acknowledged the tragic consequences of the incident for the victim's family and the community. The court also highlighted the importance of balancing the needs of justice, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

In sentencing TH, the court determined that while the use of a lethal weapon indicated a serious level of culpability, TH's young age and background warranted consideration of mitigating factors. The court found that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust and instead imposed a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years. For HH, the court concluded that the gravity of his offending was low, and he was convicted and discharged without a custodial sentence. The court also declined to grant HH permanent name suppression, finding that the public interest in knowing his identity outweighed the potential hardship to him.

The court's decision demonstrates a balanced approach to sentencing that considers both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offenders, particularly their youth and background. The outcome reflects the court's commitment to upholding the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation while also recognising the unique challenges faced by young offenders.

Orders