JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Stevens J)
Introduction
[1]        Anaru Terei Tamati Rangiuhuna and Nathan Finch Lewis were both convicted of a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm following a trial by jury in the District Court before Judge Neave.[1] Mr Lewis was also convicted of two further charges, namely, possession of a pistol and threatening to kill. Mr Rangihuna was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years and six months. Mr Lewis was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years and three months.
[1]      R v Rangihuna DC Christchurch CRI-2008-009-015828, 31 March 2010.
[2]        Both of the appellants appeal against their conviction on the wounding charge on the ground that the Judge’s summing up gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. They submit that in summarising the defence case the Judge presented contrary arguments of his own and made comments which unfairly undermined the defence position. In short, their counsel, Mr Rapley, contended that the Judge “crossed the boundary into impermissible lack of balance”.[2]
[2]      Relying on R v Keremete CA247/03, 23 October 2003 at [23].
[3]        The appeal against sentence on the wounding charge is on the basis that the Judge erred in his assessment of aggravating features of the offending and wrongly determined that it fell at the lower end of band two of R v Taueki[3] warranting a starting point of six years and six months imprisonment. Counsel for the appellants submits that the offending is properly characterised as band one and that the starting point should have been no more than five years imprisonment. Further, in the case of Mr Lewis, the cumulative sentence of nine months imprisonment imposed for the offences of threatening to kill and possession of a pistol ought to have been concurrent with the sentence on the wounding charge.
Factual background
[3]      R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).
[4]        The charges arose out of a violent attack on a neighbour who was lured onto the appellants’ property on Baker Street in Christchurch, detained within the property and then attacked in various ways including, as the Crown alleged, by a bull mastiff dog used as a form of weapon.
[5]        On 19 September 2008, the neighbour saw Mr Lewis approach his house and make a throat-slitting gesture towards him. There had previously been difficulties between the appellants and various neighbours (including the complainant) because of noise, burnouts and other boy-racer-type activities emanating from the appellants’ house. Mr Lewis invited the neighbour onto the appellants’ property. The neighbour followed him, hoping that they would…

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 Rangihuna v R

Details

AGLC: Rangihuna v R [2010] NZCA 540
Case: [2010] NZCA 540
Decision Date: 22 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction and sentence by Anaru Terei Tamati Rangiuhuna and Nathan Finch Lewis was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Both appellants were convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and Lewis was additionally convicted of possession of a pistol and threatening to kill. The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the summing up by the trial judge led to a miscarriage of justice. They claimed that the judge presented contrary arguments of his own and unfairly undermined the defence position. However, the Court of Appeal found that the summing up was not such as to leave the case in a state of imbalance or otherwise create unfairness. Regarding the sentence appeal, the appellants argued that the judge erred in his assessment of aggravating features of the offending and wrongly determined that it fell at the lower end of band two of R v Taueki. However, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the judge undertook the appropriate evaluative exercise in applying the relevant Taueki factors and the starting point chosen was well within range. The Court of Appeal also found that the imposition of a cumulative sentence of nine months imprisonment on Lewis was appropriate to reflect the additional criminality involved in the offences of possession of a pistol and threatening to kill.

Orders