Ratahi v Police - [2021] NZHC 3586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-416-000011

[2021] NZHC 3586

BETWEEN
SHANNON RATAHI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 December 2021

Appearances:

N Wright for the Appellant C Walker for the Respondent

Judgment:

21 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

[1] Mr Shannon Ratahi was sentenced on 7 December 2021 at the Gisborne District Court, on two charges of breaching a family protection order, and one charge of kidnapping, to two years and two months' imprisonment.1

[2]He initially appealed this decision on four grounds:

(a)That the starting point adopted by the court was too high;

(b)That the Court miscalculated the guilty plea discount (now withdrawn)

(c)That the Court made an incorrect factual finding concerning the Crown's concession that home detention would be available; and

1 R v Ratahi [2021] NZDC 24219.

RATAHI v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3586 [21 December 2021]

(d)That the Court failed to take into account a number of relevant considerations

[3] Immediately preceding the hearing Ms Wright, for the appellant, added further grounds which she indicated would be the focus of the appeal:

(a)That insufficient weight was given to the contents of the Cultural Report; and

(b)Given the contents of the section 27 report, the case is an exception to the case law regime of setting a starting point first.

[4] The Crown did not oppose the amendment but opposed the substantive appeal, stating that there was no error in the sentencing process, and that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

[5]Leave to amend the grounds is given. I now deal with the appeal.

Background

Factual background

[6] Mr Ratahi and the victim have been in a relationship for 17 years and have four children. On 24 August 2005 a protection order was put in place against Mr Ratahi to protect the victim.

[7] On 28 April 2021, the victim went to pick up her daughter from an address in Gisborne. Although Mr Ratahi told her that he would not be at that address at the time, he was there when the victim arrived at the house. Their daughter did not want to leave and wanted the victim to stay, so she stayed overnight in her daughter's bed. This occurred after an incident on 27 April 2021, where Mr Ratahi had been driven home by the victim in an intoxicated state, and upon arriving at the address had become paranoid that the victim was setting him up and refused to leave the victim vehicle until he had seen her phone, ripping it out of her hand and exiting the vehicle.

[8] During the night of the 28 April, Mr Ratahi took possession of the victim’s car keys. The next morning at around 7.30 am, he asked to borrow the victim’s car. She refused. He then grabbed her and pulled her into the car, with their daughter in the back of the car. He then drove off. The victim was under the impression…

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 Ratahi v Police

Details

AGLC: Ratahi v Police [2021] NZHC 3586
Case: [2021] NZHC 3586
Decision Date: 21 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Ratahi was sentenced in the Gisborne District Court to two years and two months' imprisonment for two charges of breaching a family protection order, and one charge of kidnapping. He appealed this decision on several grounds, including that the starting point was too high, and that insufficient weight was given to the contents of a Cultural Report. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 12 months' home detention, subject to special conditions. In reaching its decision, the court noted that the starting point for the kidnapping was too high, and that a sentence of two years and two months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive in light of the authorities. The court found that a starting point of two years and nine months' imprisonment was more appropriate. The court also found that the 15% discount for cultural factors was appropriate. The court considered the appropriate sentence to be 23 months' imprisonment, which was converted to a period of 12 months' home detention. The court imposed special conditions for the home detention sentence, including that Mr Ratahi not communicate in any way or associate with the victim, not to possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs, and to attend and complete any counselling, treatment or programme as recommended by a Probation Officer.

Orders