Legal Research
Cases
R v Waititi

R v Waititi

Case [2015] NZHC 1211 3 June 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Unconscionable Conduct

Asperger’s Syndrome

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-087-1381 [2015] NZHC 1211

THE QUEEN

v

PARARAKI KINGI WAITITI

Charges:
Plea:

Discharging firearm with intent;

Wounding with intent to injure

Guilty

Counsel:

G C Hollister-Jones for Crown
G R Tomlinson for Prisoner

Sentenced:

3 June 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Crown
Gowing & Co (Whakatane) for Prisoner

R v WAITITI [2015] NZHC 1211 [3 June 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Waititi, you appear for sentence on one charge of discharging a firearm with intent to injure1 and one charge of wounding with intent to injure.2 You pleaded guilty to these charges on 17 April 2015. The maximum term of imprisonment for both offences is seven years.

[2] You were initially charged with attempted murder and with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown has chosen to withdraw those charges.

Facts

[3] During 2013, when you were 18 years old, you lived with your father on an isolated rural property in the Waihau Bay area. Your father required you to work on the property and, if you displeased him, became angry with you. He would quite frequently shout at you and verbally abuse you.

[4] On 28 August 2013, in the afternoon, your father told you to collect wood and pinecones to keep the fire going. For the next two hours your father kept on working at his chores believing you had gone to gather firewood. In fact, you were in the house bus resting.

[5] At about 4:00 pm, you approached your father who was in his hothouse tending his cannabis seedlings. You asked him for the pruning tool which you would need to cut the branches with the pinecones. This meant your father found out that you had not been doing as he had instructed. He became very angry with you. He yelled at you, swore at you and threatened you.

[6] You left and went to your father’s bedroom where you got his .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle. You had been hunting with your father in the past and he had shown you how to use the rifle. You took it out of its case. You knew it to be
loaded. You took it back to the hothouse where your father was working.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 198.
2 Section 188(2).

[7] Your father had his back to you and did not know you had returned. You stood approximately five metres away from your father, pointed the rifle at his back and shot him five times in the back, arm and side. He fell to the ground. You then threw the rifle away and picked up a hammer which was lying nearby. You attacked your father with the hammer, striking him two to three times over the head. Your father raised his arms to protect his head and you struck him twice with the hammer in his body. He then moved his arms to protect his body and you…

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 Waititi

Details

AGLC: R v Waititi [2015] NZHC 1211
Case: [2015] NZHC 1211
Decision Date: 3 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Pararaki Kingi Waititi was sentenced for discharging a firearm with intent to injure and for wounding with intent to injure. The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. The maximum penalty for each offence was seven years' imprisonment. The court was required to determine an appropriate starting point for the defendant's sentence, which would then be adjusted for personal mitigating factors, including the defendant's Asperger's Syndrome. The court was also required to determine the appropriate discount for the defendant's guilty pleas.

The court determined that the defendant's use of extreme violence, the seriousness of the injuries caused, the use of two weapons, and the targeting of the victim's head all contributed to the seriousness of the offending. The court determined that a starting point of six years' imprisonment was appropriate. The court then considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his Asperger's Syndrome and the provocation provided by the victim. The court found that a 30% discount was appropriate. The court then considered other mitigating factors, including the defendant's age, clean record, and remorse. The court determined that a further 20% discount was appropriate. The court considered the discount for the defendant's guilty pleas and determined that a full 25% discount was appropriate. The court then considered the totality of the defendant's offending and determined that the sentence was appropriate. The defendant was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment.

Orders