Charge:
Plea::

Wounding with intent x1

Guilty

Appearances:

S L McColgan and S Wilson for Crown
P H H Tomlinson for Defendant

Sentenced:

30 October 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: P H H Tomlinson, Auckland

R v RAWIRI WERETA [2015] NZHC 2683 [30 October 2015]

[1] Rawiri Wereta you are for sentence in this Court having pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years’ imprisonment. Given your record the Court must also consider whether to impose preventive detention in this case. The consequences of that will have explained to you by your counsel Mr Tomlinson. If a finite term of imprisonment, in other words a length of years is imposed instead of preventive detention, as this is a second strike offence for you, you will have to serve the full term of the sentence without parole.

[2] The charge arose out of an incident in D Block at Paremoremo Prison. You and a co-accused, Mr Hill, together with the victim in the matter, were released from your cells during the course of the afternoon on 1 April 2014 to stretch your legs on the landing outside your cells. While the victim was attempting to hang up a washing line Mr Hill approached him and punched him several times in the head and upper body. After Mr Hill had delivered the first blows you went up to the victim, pulled out a shank from your trousers and attacked him. He attempted to hold you off by backing away using the washing line as a whip but you cornered him at the end of the landing. Mr Hill continued to assault the victim but when you joined in using the shank and began slashing at the victim Mr Hill left. The washing line was ripped from the victim. He tried to grab a mop to defend himself against your attack with the shank. You stabbed him at least three times with the shank after ripping the mop away from him. After the attack you threw the shank out of the window. It was later recovered. The shank was made from a sharpened steel rod and measured approximately 23 cms, just under a foot long. Your attack affected a nerve in the victim’s arm leaving him with a flail right arm and puncture wounds on both arms and his right hand.

[3] At this point I note you do not accept the summary of facts insofar as it goes on to say you continued to assault the victim while he was on the floor. I accept Mr Tomlinson’s submission that in the circumstances whether that was so or not will carry little weight in the ultimate sentence to be imposed by this Court in this case, particularly given it is accepted on your…

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 Wereta

Details

AGLC: R v Wereta [2015] NZHC 2683
Case: [2015] NZHC 2683
Decision Date: 30 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rawiri Wereta was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, a charge to which he pleaded guilty. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years' imprisonment, and the court was required to consider whether preventive detention should be imposed due to Wereta's criminal history. The incident occurred in April 2014 at Paremoremo Prison, where Wereta and a co-accused assaulted a victim who was attempting to hang a washing line. Wereta used a shank, a sharpened steel rod, to stab the victim multiple times, causing serious injury. The court noted that while there was some debate about the exact nature of the attack, the overall severity was clear.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence, considering the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002, and deciding whether preventive detention was warranted. Factors considered included the premeditation, seriousness of the injury, use of a weapon, and vulnerability of the victim. The court also assessed Wereta's personal circumstances, including his extensive criminal history, the fact that the offence occurred while he was imprisoned, and his recent engagement with psychological services. The Crown argued for a sentence of eight to nine years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a sentence around five years.

The court found that the offending was appropriately placed towards the higher end of band 2 in R v Taueki and started with a base sentence of eight years' imprisonment. The court imposed additional time for Wereta's prior convictions and the fact that the offence occurred in prison, but also applied a discount for his guilty plea. Considering the totality principle and Wereta's existing sentences, the court arrived at a cumulative sentence of six years and nine months. Given the severity of the current offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a minimum term of 50%. After evaluating the risk Wereta posed to the community, the court decided against imposing preventive detention, noting his recent efforts to address his behavioural issues. Wereta was sentenced to six years and nine months' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively and without parole.

The final orders included Wereta serving his sentence without parole and a recorded minimum term of imprisonment of 50% had the sentence not been a second strike offence. The court's decision balanced the seriousness of the crime with Wereta's recent efforts towards rehabilitation.

Orders