Rameka v The King - [2025] NZHC 2240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-135

[2025] NZHC 2240

BETWEEN
MENPHIS WAIRIKI DYNASTY RAMEKA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 7 August 2025

Appearances:

P N Allan for Appellant

G L Collett for Respondent

Judgment:

8 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2025 at 2.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

RAMEKA v R [2025] NZHC 2240 [8 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Menphis Rameka was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment having pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to injure.1 He appeals that sentence on the basis that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high, and insufficient reductions were applied for mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

Facts

[2]Mr Rameka is in a relationship with the victim’s daughter. At approximately

4 am on 21 July 2024, Mr Rameka was sitting outside Timezone in central Christchurch in the company of two associates and the victim’s daughter. The victim arrived to pick up his daughter, stopping his vehicle on the street outside Timezone. His 16-year-old son and another person were also in the vehicle. The victim spoke with his daughter through the passenger window, asking her to get into the vehicle as she was intoxicated and had no other way to get home. This conversation continued for about five minutes before the victim’s son got out of the vehicle to speak with Mr Rameka.

[3] A confrontation occurred between Mr Rameka and the victim’s son, during which Mr Rameka challenged him to a fight. The victim’s son returned to the vehicle and told the victim what had happened. The victim walked around the vehicle to where his daughter was standing on the footpath and grabbed her arms. He tried to drag her towards the truck, but she pulled out of his grasp and fell onto the footpath.

[4] Mr Rameka reached into the pocket of his trousers and pulled out a pocketknife. He opened the knife and approached the victim. He assumed a position with crouched knees and the knife concealed in his right hand while the victim walked towards him.

[5] When the victim was within reach, Mr Rameka swung the knife towards his head, narrowly missing as the victim ducked. Mr Rameka backed away and swung

1 R v Rameka [2025] NZDC 11876.

the knife at the victim’s head a second time. The victim again ducked and grappled with Mr Rameka, grabbing onto his arms and pushing him backwards.

[6] Mr Rameka continued to swing the knife at the victim until they collided with a wall and both fell to the ground. The victim’s son attempted to intervene but was pushed away by one of Mr Rameka’s associates. Mr Rameka and the victim remained on the ground fighting for approximately 30 seconds, while the victim’s daughter tried to pull them apart.

[7]…

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 Rameka v The King

Details

AGLC: Rameka v The King [2025] NZHC 2240
Case: [2025] NZHC 2240
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Menphis Rameka appealed his two-year-and-three-months' imprisonment sentence for wounding with intent to injure, arguing the starting point was too high and insufficient reductions were applied for mitigating factors. The incident occurred when Mr Rameka, accompanied by two associates and the victim's intoxicated daughter, was challenged by the victim's son outside a Christchurch convenience store. A confrontation ensued between Mr Rameka and the victim's son, leading to Mr Rameka stabbing the victim multiple times, including a life-threatening stab wound to the neck. The victim suffered serious injuries and required intensive care.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point for the sentence was too high and whether sufficient reductions were applied for mitigating factors such as self-defence, guilty plea, youth, and remorse. The court assessed the aggravating features, including the use of a weapon, attack to the head, and serious injury, which placed the offending in band three of Nuku v R, suggesting a starting point from two years up to the statutory maximum of seven years. The court found the starting point of three years and nine months was appropriate given the severity of the attack and the victim's vulnerability. The court also determined that the deductions for guilty plea, youth, and remorse were within the available range. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders