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]    Mr Rameka managed to get on top of the victim with the victim lying face down in the grass.  Mr  Rameka  got  to  his  feet,  then  leaned  down  and  made  two stabbing motions with the knife to the victim’s neck area. The victim got to his feet and walked towards his vehicle, bleeding heavily from a wound in his neck.

[8]    The victim sustained stab wounds to his right arm, left shoulder, back of his head, nose, eyebrow and neck. The stab wound to the neck was life threatening, requiring lifesaving measures and time in the Intensive Care Unit at Christchurch Hospital.

Victim Impact statement

[9]    The victim impact statement describes very serious effects to the victim. He suffered eight stab wounds and was in a coma while in ICU. Doctors told the victim that his heart stopped beating twice and he says he is surprised he is still alive. He has been in rehabilitation ever since, saying it took three months before he could even move around the house normally. The stab wound to his throat also cut a nerve running to his tongue, meaning he has lost feeling there and cannot eat properly.

[10]   As a result of his injuries, the victim lost his job at a freezing works. His job as a meat boner required a high level of dexterity which he can no longer perform due to his injuries. He is now in receipt of a benefit and only able to work part time, and he says this has been hard on his family.

District Court decision

[11]   Judge Elkin assessed the offending as falling within band three of Nuku v R.2 The use of a weapon, the life-threatening injuries to the victim, and the attack to the head, were aggravating features. Mr Rameka’s counsel at sentencing suggested that this was a case of excessive self-defence. The Judge accepted that the stabbing occurred in the context of a fight between Mr Rameka and the victim, however, did not consider that changed the fact that Mr Rameka stabbed him several times, including stabbing him in the neck, while the victim was lying face down in the grass.

[12]   The Judge adopted a starting point of three years and nine months, and indicated that the starting point would have been four years if not for the fact that the stabbing occurred in a context of a mutual fight with the victim.

[13]   The Judge declined to uplift the sentence in light of a previous conviction for possession of a knife in a public place, but indicated that would have an impact on how she imposed mitigating credits such as youth. A reduction of 15 per cent was applied for guilty plea, entered at pre-trial call over. A further 10 per cent for youth, five per cent for background factors, and two percent for remorse, were applied. In recognition of nine months spent on bail (seven months on EM bail and a further  two months on ordinary bail) the Judge reduced his sentence by a further three months. The end sentence was two years and three months’ imprisonment.

Principles on appeal

[14]   Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and must be determined in accordance with s 250. An appeal against sentence may be allowed by this Court only if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.3 As the Court of Appeal stated in Tutakangahau v R, quoting the lower court’s decision, a “court will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles”.4 It is appropriate for this Court to

2      Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39.

3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2) and 250(3).

4      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].

intervene and substitute its own views only if the sentence being appealed is “manifestly excessive” and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.5

Submissions

Appellant’s submissions

[15]   Mr Allan, for the appellant, submits that the starting point was too high6 and failed to adequately account for the mitigating factor of self-defence. Mr Allan points to Xiang v New Zealand Police, in which he says the High Court reduced the starting point by one year to reflect the presence of excessive self-defence.7

[16]   As to personal factors, Mr Allan submits that a guilty plea deduction greater than 15 per cent was justified, because the charge Mr Rameka faced was amended significantly, halving the maximum potential sentence.8 Mr Allan submits that at least 20 per cent would be appropriate. Mr Allan also suggests that a greater youth deduction should have been given.

Respondent’s submissions

[17]   Ms Collett, for the Crown, submits that the starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was open to the Judge. The presence of four aggravating features clearly put the offending into band three of Nuku v R.9 Ms Collett suggests that Tuporo v R is similar to the present case as it also involved use of a weapon (a car) and serious injury. The High Court on appeal considered a starting point of four years and nine months’ was in range.10

5      Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

6      Mr Allan cites Sheppard v R [2013] NZCA 639; Shibab v New Zealand Police [2018] NZHC 2243; and R v Moala [2019] NZHC 758.

7      Xiang v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2006-463-49, 30 June 2006.

8      The charge was amended from wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, to a charge of wounding with intent to injure under s 188(2) of the Crimes Act 1961, with a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

9      The Crown says that the victim’s vulnerability while he was lying on the ground was an additional aggravating factor.

10 Tuporo v R [2025] NZHC 1137, although noting this observation appears to include a charge of failing to stop and ascertain injury.

[18]   Ms Collett disagrees that excessive self-defence is a feature that significantly mitigates Mr Rameka’s culpability. It was Mr Rameka who acted aggressively from the outset, took out the knife, and approached the victim. Furthermore, the most serious injuries were inflicted when the victim was lying facedown in the grass, and so was no real threat.

[19]   As to the deduction for guilty plea, Ms Collett accepts that Mr Rameka pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, however submits that this involved no substantive change to the allegations, the facts, or Mr Rameka’s overall culpability.

[20]   Ms Collett submits that the youth discount of 10 per cent was in range. The discount suggested by Mr Allan, of 15 per cent, sits at the upper end of the available range.11 Mr Rameka’s circumstances are similar to that of the appellant in Sasalulu v Police, being 22 years of age, not particularly youthful, and having previously offended.12 In Sasalulu v Police, a four per cent discount was applied for youth and remorse.

[21]For all these reasons, the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Analysis

Starting point

[22]   I consider that the starting point of three years and nine months was open to the Judge having regard to the guideline judgment in Nuku and a further reduction in the starting point to reflect excessive self-defence was not justified on the facts. As the Crown submits, there was no indication that the victim posed any harm to his daughter or to Mr Rameka. It was Mr Rameka who initially challenged the victim’s son to a fight, and later pulled out a knife, assuming a crouched stance. The victim did not know that Mr Rameka was armed with a knife when he approached him. The stabs to the victim’s neck occurred while the victim was face down in the grass, and when he posed no threat to Mr Rameka. Any mutuality of the initial fight was also tempered by the victim’s vulnerability when Mr Rameka stabbed him. The Judge

11     Huata v R [2013] NZCA 470.

12     Sasulu v Police [2024] NZHC 1470 at [14].

adequately recognised that the confrontation began as a mutual fight by factoring in a reduction to the starting point.

[23]   I also note the suggestion that in Xiang, the starting point was reduced by one year on appeal to reflect the element of self-defence is incorrect.13 The starting point there was adjusted on appeal to reflect the fact the guideline bands in R v Taueki had to be adjusted down as they applied to grievous bodily harm offences for which the maximum sentence was 14 years’ imprisonment, whereas the offence in Xiang had a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.14

[24]   I am satisfied that the limited evidence of self-defence which emerges from the summary of facts does not warrant any further reduction in the starting point.

[25]   As to the overall starting point, as the Judge recognised the following aggravating features are present:

(a)use of a weapon;

(b)attack to the head; and

(c)serious injury, noting there were multiple stab wounds and that the injuries to the victim were life threatening.

[26]   That places the offending in band three of Nuku v R, as the Judge recognised, which dictates a starting point from two years up to the statutory maximum of   seven years.15 The seriousness of each aggravating feature also needs to be assessed.16 The use of a weapon was a moderate aggravating feature. A pocket knife can be a lethal weapon that is easily concealed, although I accept Mr Rameka did not arm himself with the knife with the intention of using it to harm the victim that night. The attack to the head and neck, and the serious injuries to the victim, are the most serious aggravating features. Coupled with the victim’s vulnerability when his neck was

13     Xiang v New Zealand Police, above n 2.

14     R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).

15     Nuku v R, above n 2, at [38(c)].

16     Nuku v R, above n 2, at [42].

attacked, I consider that those two aggravating factors are present to a high degree. That suggests a starting point significantly above the lower threshold of two years was warranted, and three years and nine months was well within range.

[27]   As the Court of Appeal said in Taueki v R, where a guideline judgment exists, relatively limited assistance can be gained from references to various High Court judgments as each will turn on their own individual facts.17

[28]   Notwithstanding that, I consider that the starting point adopted here was not out of step with other authority. In Shihab v Police, the appellant was convicted of wounding with intent to injure and common assault, having punched the victim in the face and stabbed the victim with an “unknown object” in the abdomen.18 Downs J considered that the use of a weapon, an attack to the head and serious harm to the victim indicated a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment.19 The attack to the head was less serious than in Mr Rameka’s case, as it was a punch rather than stabbing with a knife, and the resulting injuries while serious, were not as serious as here.

[29]   In Sheppard v R, the appellant stabbed a security guard in the neck with a screwdriver, causing a small puncture wound. The Court of Appeal considered that a starting point of two years and six months was appropriate, noting the presence of two aggravating features (the use of  a  weapon  and  attack  to  the  head  and  neck).20 Mr Rameka’s offending was significantly more serious. A starting point of three years, as suggested by Mr Allan, would not adequately reflect the difference in seriousness between Mr Rameka’s  offending  and  Mr  Sheppard’s  offending.  The  harm  to  Mr Rameka’s victim was significantly more serious and Mr Rameka used a more lethal weapon.

[30]   The starting point of three years and nine months was open to the Judge. It reflected the presence of three aggravating features, two of them to a high degree, particularly the very serious harm Mr Rameka caused to the victim.

17     R v Taueki, above n 14, at [11]; see also Kauvai v R [2017] NZCA 241 at [13].

18     Shibab v Police, above n 6.

19 At [10].

20     Sheppard v R, above n 6.

Guilty plea

[31]   Mr Rameka pleaded guilty at a pre-trial callover after the charge he faced was amended from wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,21 to wounding with intent to injure. The summary of facts did not change. Furthermore, the attack was recorded on CCTV camera so the evidence of what occurred was strong. There is also no suggestion that Mr Rameka made an unequivocal offer, prior to amendment, to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

[32]   While I accept that Mr Rameka pleaded guilty immediately after the charge was amended, given the significant reduction in maximum penalty following amendment I consider that a guilty plea deduction of 20–25 per cent would amount to a double benefit.22 A deduction of 15 per cent for guilty plea was in the available range in all the circumstances.

Youth

[33]   Mr Rameka was 22 and a half years old at the time of the offending which is towards the upper end of the age range for which a youth deduction is available.23 Taking account of the Judge’s approach of reducing the youth deduction rather than uplifting the starting point for Mr Rameka’s previous conviction for possession of a knife, the deduction of 10 per cent was, in my view, at the upper end of what was available.

[34]For all these reasons, the end sentence was clearly within range.

Result

[35]The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Copy to:
P N Allan, Barrister, Christchurch

21     Which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment; wounding with intent to injure carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

22     Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [62]; Wu v R [2022] NZCA 604 at [23]

23     Huata v R, above n 10.