Ratana v The King - [2024] NZCA 192

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA38/2024
[2024] NZCA 192

BETWEEN	TEMA WIREMU RATANA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	13 May 2024
Court:	Mallon, Lang and Moore JJ
Counsel:	S R Lack for Appellant T R Simpson for Respondent
Judgment:	29 May 2024 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Lang J)

Mr Ratana pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of wounding with intention to cause grievous bodily harm.[1] The charge was laid after Mr Ratana inflicted two serious stab wounds on the victim of his offending. On 19 December 2023, Judge Hikaka sentenced Mr Ratana to seven years’ imprisonment.[2]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).
[2]R v Ratana [2023] NZDC 28878 [sentencing notes].
Mr Ratana appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge committed several errors in constructing the sentence and this resulted in the end sentence being manifestly excessive.

The facts

The Judge sentenced Mr Ratana on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This was supplemented by factual findings the Judge made following a disputed fact hearing that he conducted prior to sentencing.[3]
[3]R v Ratana [2023] NZDC 12718 [disputed facts hearing decision].
Mr Ratana has an 18-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. The incident giving rise to the charge had its origins in disharmony that occurred in the relationship between Mr Ratana’s daughter and the victim, her 19-year-old partner. Mr Ratana and his partner became aware of these issues on or about 20 November 2021 and they also came to believe that Mr Ratana’s daughter had been assaulted by her partner. This led them to become involved in text message exchanges with Mr Ratana’s daughter and her mother. Text messages that Mr Ratana’s partner sent to the mother of Mr Ratana’s daughter threatened to cause the victim extreme violence.
At 1.40 pm on the afternoon of 21 November 2021, Mr Ratana and his partner drove to the address where the victim was living with his mother and younger brothers. Their three children were present with them in the vehicle. Mr Ratana’s partner parked the vehicle across the driveway of the address and Mr Ratana walked up to the victim, who was mowing his lawns. Mr Ratana approached the victim from behind and then punched him in the face as he turned around.
The victim immediately responded by pushing Mr Ratana to the ground and then punching him in the face and body as he attempted to get up. This resulted in Mr Ratana receiving a bleeding nose. Mr Ratana was eventually able to get away from the victim and returned to his vehicle. He told the victim that he would be back and was then driven away by his partner. The altercation caused Mr Ratana to leave his cellphone, sunglasses and an item of footwear at the victim’s address.
Mr Ratana and his partner returned to the address approximately 30 minutes later.…

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 Ratana v The King

Details

AGLC: Ratana v The King [2024] NZCA 192
Case: [2024] NZCA 192
Decision Date: 29 May 2024 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tema Wiremu Ratana appealed against his sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to errors made by the sentencing judge. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offence. The Court considered whether the judge had erred in restricting the scope of evidence at the disputed facts hearing, in concluding that the offending did not constitute excessive self-defence, and in setting the starting point and applying discounts for the guilty plea and other mitigating factors. The Court found no error in the judge's handling of these issues and therefore upheld the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of seven years' imprisonment was confirmed.

Orders