Rawiri v Police - [2018] NZHC 1439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-000023

[2018] NZHC 1439

BETWEEN
AROKA RAWIRI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2018

Appearances:

C G Nolan for Appellant

C J Bernhardt for Respondent

Judgment:

14 June 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[1] On 26 February 2018 Judge Saunders in the District Court sentenced the appellant Aroka Rawiri, along with a co-offender, to 13 months’ imprisonment after she pleaded guilty to assault with intent to injure. This is to be served cumulatively on the prison sentence of six years, 10 months the appellant is currently serving for kidnapping, aggravated burglary and robbery.

[2] The appellant appeals the sentence imposed by Judge Saunders on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

[3] A preliminary issue arises here. While this offending occurred at Christchurch Women’s Prison, according to the Provision of Advice to Courts the appellant identifies as a man. Mr Nolan, counsel for the appellant, however, indicated to me at the outset of this hearing that for present purposes the appellant can be referred to

RAWIRI v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 1439 [14 June 2018]

using “she” or “her” pronouns. This judgment will therefore proceed on the basis that “she” and “her” pronouns are used. No disrespect is intended by this.

[4] Turning to the facts in this matter, the appellant, the co-offender and the victim were all sentenced prisoners in Wing 1 at Christchurch Women’s Prison. On 15 November 2017, the appellant and her co-offender entered the Wing 1 courtyard and directly approached the victim. After some animated conversation, the appellant turned and punched the victim with some force while both were seated. The victim and the appellant traded blows until the co-offender pulled the victim by the hair into the Unit lounge. The appellant then kneed and kicked the victim. This continued for some time until the victim broke away. As the victim started to leave the lounge the co-offender punched the victim to the face and continued with a flurry of punches and kicks until other prisoners came to the victim’s aid.

[5] The victim declined to make a complaint or to discuss the incident with police. She presented the following day, however, with a headache, bruising on both cheeks, lumps on her forehead, injuries to the side of her neck and soreness all over her body.

[6] Turning now to the District Court decision, Judge Saunders sentenced both the appellant and her co-offender at the same time. The maximum penalty for assault with intent to injure is three years’ imprisonment. With reference to the aggravating feature which Judge Saunders said was attacks by way of kicks and punches to the head, His Honour adopted a mid-range starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.

[7] Judge Saunders then considered imposing an uplift for the appellant’s criminal history but declined to do so. His Honour expressed concern about the effect of an uplift on the time spent in…

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 Rawiri v Police

Details

AGLC: Rawiri v Police [2018] NZHC 1439
Case: [2018] NZHC 1439
Decision Date: 14 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court heard an appeal by Aroka Rawiri against the sentence imposed on her by the District Court for an assault with intent to injure while she was serving a sentence in a women's prison. The District Court had sentenced Rawiri to 13 months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the sentence she was already serving. Rawiri appealed the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. A key issue in the case was whether the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment was too high, given the relatively minor injuries sustained by the victim. Another issue was whether it was appropriate to treat Rawiri and her co-offender the same when sentencing them for their joint offending.

The High Court held that the District Court Judge had erred in treating the co-offenders the same when sentencing them. The summary of facts did not specify that Rawiri had struck the victim to the head and it was not appropriate to treat her the same as her co-offender when sentencing her. The Court also held that the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment was too high. Given the relatively minor injuries sustained by the victim, a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment would have been appropriate. With a 25% credit for the early guilty plea, this would result in a final sentence of nine months' imprisonment. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of nine months' imprisonment in place of the 13 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court.

The final orders of the High Court were that the appeal was allowed, the sentence of 13 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court was quashed, and a sentence of nine months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively on Rawiri's existing sentence was imposed in its place.

Orders