Rangirangi v R - [2016] NZHC 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2015-441-50

CRI-2016-441-3 [2016] NZHC 122

BETWEEN
BRYCE RANGIRANGI

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 3 February 2016

Appearances:

M Dixon and W R Hawkins for Appellant
F E Cleary for Respondent

Judgment:

10 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 February 2016 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

RANGIRANGI v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 122 [10 February 2016]

[1] Mr Rangirangi pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and a charge of theft. On 27 January
2016, Judge Rea sentenced Mr Rangirangi to two years and five months imprisonment on those charges.1

[2] Mr Rangirangi appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge failed to apply a discount to reflect the fact that he committed the offence in order to protect his partner who was under attack from two other persons.

Factual background

[3] The charges were laid as a result of an incident that occurred on 6 June 2015. On that date Mr Rangirangi went with his partner, Ms Goodnight, to a retail shop in central Hastings. They were accompanied by Ms Goodnight’s brother and by several young children. Mr Rangirangi was carrying one of the children on his shoulders throughout the incident that followed. The two complainants, Mr Habets and his partner Ms Zhang, were working in the shop at the time. Ms Zhang was the owner of the business and Mr Habets was working at the store on a voluntary basis.

[4] After Mr Rangirangi’s group had been in the store for some time, Ms Zhang and Mr Habets formed the view that they were stealing items of clothing. They confronted Mr Rangirangi and Ms Goodnight about this in the area around the till. The situation deteriorated quickly, and Ms Zhang and Mr Habets became involved in an argument with Ms Goodnight. This developed into a physical altercation that took the form of pushing and shoving.

[5] Mr Rangirangi initially walked away from the incident and left the premises. Very quickly afterwards, however, he re-entered the shop and punched Mr Habets three times in the face and head. Mr Habets immediately fell to the floor. Mr
Rangirangi then turned and walked out of the premises.

1 R v Rangirangi [2016] NZDC 1235.

[6] The struggle between Ms Zhang and Ms Goodnight continued for a few more minutes, with Ms Goodnight gaining the upper hand. Her brother eventually removed her from the scene.

[7] Mr Habets suffered significant injuries as a result of the punches delivered by Mr Rangirangi. He received a broken jaw, a fractured eye socket and a fractured vertebra. He was also required to undergo surgery because of bleeding to the brain.

Procedural background

[8] There are currently two appeals before the Court. In order to explain how this has occurred, it is necessary…

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 Rangirangi v R

Details

AGLC: Rangirangi v R [2016] NZHC 122
Case: [2016] NZHC 122
Decision Date: 10 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to review an appeal against the sentence imposed on Mr Rangirangi, who had been found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and theft. The appeal focused on whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the mitigating factor that Mr Rangirangi had acted to protect his partner during an altercation. The court needed to decide if the sentencing judge had erred in the onus of proof regarding the mitigating factor and if the sentence discount for Mr Rangirangi’s guilty pleas was appropriately reduced.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the onus of proof for disputed mitigating facts. Under the Sentencing Act 2002, when a mitigating factor relates to the nature of the offence or the offender’s part in it, the offender must prove it on the balance of probabilities. However, the court found that the mitigating factor in this case did relate to the nature of the offence and Mr Rangirangi’s part in it, thus the Crown should have disproven the mitigating factor beyond reasonable doubt. Despite this error, the court noted that the sentencing judge’s decision would likely have been the same even if the correct onus had been applied. The court also reviewed the evidence, including CCTV footage and witness testimonies, and concluded that Mr Rangirangi’s actions did not reflect an attempt to protect his partner, thereby rejecting his mitigating argument. Regarding the discount for guilty pleas, the court upheld the judge’s decision to reduce the discount, considering the need for a disputed facts hearing and the complainants' requirement to give evidence.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal against the sentence. The reasoning was that the evidence did not support Mr Rangirangi’s claim of acting in defence of his partner, and the reduction in the discount for guilty pleas was justified given the circumstances of the case.

Orders