Legal Research
Cases
Ratima v The King

Ratima v The King

Case [2024] NZSC 126 26 September 2024

Sentencing

Mental Health

Breach of Trust

Constitutional Validity

Public Safety

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 77/2024
[2024] NZSC 126

BETWEEN	KINGI RATIMA Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	E P Priest and J D Lucas for Applicant P D Marshall and D Dhir for Respondent
Judgment:	26 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

In May 2016 Mr Ratima committed a violent robbery. He punched the victim and stomped on his head as he lay on the pavement. Mr Ratima then stole the victim’s cellphone.
As it was Mr Ratima’s “third strike” offence, he was sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment of ten years.[1] The Judge did not order that the sentence be served without parole, imposing instead a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.[2]
[1]Sentencing Act 2002, s 86D(2) (since repealed).
[2]R v Ratima [2017] NZHC 252 (Gordon J) [HC judgment] at [33].
This year, Mr Ratima sought an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his sentence. After examining the merits of the proposed appeal in detail, the Court declined his application for an extension of time.[3]
[3]Ratima v R [2024] NZCA 254 (Katz, Dunningham and Gault JJ) [CA judgment].
Mr Ratima now seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court against the High Court sentence, seeking an extension of time to do so.[4]

Grounds of application

[4]Mr Ratima accepts that that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a criminal case against a refusal by the Court of Appeal to extend time for the filing of an appeal: C (SC 22/2022) v R [2022] NZSC 82 at [3]. He also accepts that ss 74 and 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 will apply to this application.

Mr Ratima submits that his sentence was manifestly excessive and caused a substantial miscarriage of justice, in accordance with the principles set out by this Court in Fitzgerald v R.[5] He submits that his mental illness was not properly taken into account and has also not been appropriately treated in prison. This has prevented him from completing rehabilitation programmes and means that he has not been able to address his underlying criminogenic needs. In his submission, this constitutes a further breach of s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights). He submits that the Court of Appeal did not properly apply Fitzgerald.
[5]Fitzgerald v R [2021] NZSC 131, [2021] 1 NZLR 551.
The Crown submits that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed. In order to establish a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice in terms of Fitzgerald, Mr Ratima must show that his sentence is so severe as to shock the national conscience.[6] The Crown submits that the Court of Appeal’s judgment demonstrates that he is…

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 Ratima v The King

Details

AGLC: Ratima v The King [2024] NZSC 126
Case: [2024] NZSC 126
Decision Date: 26 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ratima v The King, the applicant, Mr Ratima, sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed by the High Court following a violent robbery. The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed his application. The applicant had been sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years for the offence, which was mandated due to it being his third strike under the Sentencing Act 2002. The High Court Judge imposed a five-year minimum non-parole period, acknowledging that the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. The Court of Appeal had earlier declined Mr Ratima's application for an extension of time to appeal, finding that his proposed appeal was not sufficiently meritorious.

The main legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Mr Ratima's sentence was manifestly excessive and caused a substantial miscarriage of justice, warranting an extension of time to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Mr Ratima argued that his mental illness had not been properly taken into account and that his inability to access treatment and rehabilitation services in prison had prevented him from addressing his underlying criminogenic needs. The Crown contended that Mr Ratima's sentence did not shock the national conscience and that the Court of Appeal's judgment was sound. The Supreme Court held that Mr Ratima's proposed appeal did not raise issues of general or public importance beyond those already considered by the Court. The Court found that while Mr Ratima's sentence was disproportionate, it did not breach section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, as the offending was much more serious than in Fitzgerald v R. The Court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an appeal directly from the High Court decision.

The Supreme Court dismissed Mr Ratima's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court found that the issues raised by Mr Ratima regarding his treatment in prison were not relevant to the question of whether his sentence was manifestly excessive and that there were other avenues available to address such complaints. The Court emphasised that Mr Ratima's mental illness and substance abuse issues did not excuse his repeated violent offending, and that public safety was an important consideration. The Supreme Court's judgment underscored the importance of the three strikes regime in ensuring that repeat violent offenders are held accountable for their actions.

Orders