R v Ula - [2012] NZHC 3226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-090-000606 [2012] NZHC 3226

THE QUEEN

v

INISI ULA

Hearing: 30 November 2012

Appearances: S P Symon for the Crown
S Tait for the Prisoner

Judgment: 30 November 2012

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Counsel: S Tait P O Box 76538 Manukau Auckland 2241 for the Prisoner

Solicitors: Meredith Connell P O Box 2213 Shortland Street Auckland 1140 (DX CP24063) for the Crown

R v ULA HC AK CRI-2012-090-000606 [30 November 2012]

[1] Inisi Ula, you have pleaded guilty to the charge of wounding with intent to injure and the charge of assault with intent to rob.

Facts

[2] The facts of the offending are these: on 14 January 2012, at 3:30 am, the victim, Jesse Cope, left his home address intending to go to the BP Weymouth Service Station, a short distance from his home. As he walked up the road, you challenged him to a fight. He ignored you and continued walking towards the service station. As he approached the intersection of Weymouth Road and Rowandale Avenue, he was grabbed from behind by you and your associate. The two of you began punching the victim in the head.

[3] While assaulting him, you and your associate took a black shoulder bag from the victim. The bag contained a wallet and $20 cash. The victim managed to pull away from you and ran into the forecourt of the BP Weymouth Service Station. You and your associate pursued the victim into the forecourt area, even though, by then, you had taken his bag. The victim pleaded with the service station attendant to let him into the shop but the attendant could not do so, due to company policy.

[4] You then grabbed the victim and began punching him on the right side of the face with some force. Your associate went to the victim’s left and began punching him to the left side of the face. The two of you continued punching the victim until he fell to the ground. You both then kicked and stomped on the victim about the head and body until you were pulled away from him by service station customers.

[5] The victim has since had to undergo a lengthy operation to insert metal plates into both sides of his jaw. He had a fractured eye socket, which was unable to be operated on because of the severe injuries to his jaw. He will need continuous medical treatment for up to 12 months to his jaw and cheek area. I am sure there will also be ongoing consequences regarding these injuries.

Victim impact statement

Jesse Cope

[6] In terms of the victim impact statement, the victim is now a 15 year old student. He was 14 years old at the time of the offending. He says that on the day of the attack, he was minding his own business and did not provoke you or your associate in any way. He was extremely scared when…

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 Ula

Details

AGLC: R v Ula [2012] NZHC 3226
Case: [2012] NZHC 3226
Decision Date: 30 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Ula was presided over by Justice Duffy. The defendant, Inisi Ula, had pleaded guilty to charges of wounding with intent to injure and assault with intent to rob. The incident occurred on 14 January 2012, when Ula and an associate attacked Jesse Cope, a 14-year-old boy, causing him significant injuries including fractures to his jaw and cheek that required extensive surgery. The attack was unprovoked and involved extreme violence, with the assailants kicking and stomping on the victim while he was on the ground. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the extreme violence of the attack, the serious injuries inflicted on the victim, and the vulnerability of the victim. There were no mitigating factors considered in relation to the offending. However, the court did acknowledge mitigating factors relating to Ula, such as his guilty plea, his youth, expressions of remorse, and his attempts at rehabilitation, including participation in an alcohol and drug program and a violence prevention programme.

After considering the submissions from both the Crown and the defence, and reviewing comparable cases, Justice Duffy determined a starting point of nine and a half years' imprisonment for the lead offence of wounding with intent. The court applied discounts for Ula's youth, guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts, resulting in a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for the lead offence. A concurrent sentence of five and a half years' imprisonment was imposed for the charge of assault with intent to rob. Ula was also ordered to serve his sentences concurrently. The court further directed that the $1,000 worth of fines Ula owed be remitted.

In summary, Ula was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for the charge of wounding with intent to injure and five and a half years' imprisonment for the charge of assault with intent to rob, to be served concurrently. The court took into account both the severity of the attack and the mitigating factors presented by the defence, resulting in a final sentence that reflected the purposes and principles of sentencing.

Orders