Renata v The King - [2025] NZSC 140

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 52/2025
[2025] NZSC 140

BETWEEN	KAYLEB RENATA Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	C A Gentleman and T J Conder for Applicant J M Pridgeon for Respondent
Judgment:	15 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

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

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

The applicant, Mr Renata, was convicted of murder after a jury trial and sentenced in October 2022 to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 10 years.[1] At the time of the murder (February 2021), he was 16 years old.
[1]R v Renata [2022] NZHC 2745 (Davison J) [sentencing judgment].
Some 17 months out of time, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his sentence (relying on the 2023 decision of Dickey v R) on the basis that his age at the time of the offending and his personal circumstances meant that a life sentence was manifestly unjust.[2] The Court of Appeal declined the application for leave to appeal out of time.[3] He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court directly from the 2022 sentencing decision in the High Court.[4] An extension of time to do so is accordingly required.

Background

[2]Sentencing Act 2002, s 102; and Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2, [2023] 2 NZLR 405.

[3]Renata v R [2024] NZCA 469 (Courtney, Mander and Walker JJ) [CA judgment].

[4]The applicant accepts there is no jurisdiction to appeal to this Court against the refusal of the Court of Appeal to grant an extension of time: see, for example, Ratima v R [2024] NZSC 126 at [3], n 4.

The incident giving rise to the murder charge is summarised by the Court of Appeal in this way:[5]
[7]       The offending occurred at a birthday party. Mr Renata’s two associates, Mr Tutakangahau and Mr Raina, were somewhat older than Mr Renata. All three were Mongrel Mob associates and gang culture was a feature of the evening.
[8]       Mr Wharton, who was not associated with the Mongrel Mob, was targeted by Mr Tutakangahau in the mistaken belief that he was a Black Power member. He was challenged to a fight but declined. Later Mr Renata and his associates — encouraged by Mr Tutakangahau’s mother — pressed for a fight. Mr Tutakangahau punched Mr Wharton and others joined in, including Mr Renata. Mr Wharton got away and ran towards the kitchen. A group began barking and chasing after him. Mr Raina caught him as he reached the kitchen and punched him again, knocking him to the floor. Mr Raina kicked him.
[9]       Mr Wharton got up and reached the kitchen but was caught again by either Mr Tutakangahau or Mr Renata. The two then continued to punch him, knocking him to the ground and stomping on him. Those who tried to intervene were, themselves,…

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 Renata v The King

Details

AGLC: Renata v The King [2025] NZSC 140
Case: [2025] NZSC 140
Decision Date: 15 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Renata v The King, the applicant, Mr. Renata, sought an extension of time to appeal his life sentence for murder, imposed after a jury trial in 2022. Mr. Renata argued that his age at the time of the offence and his personal circumstances made the sentence manifestly unjust. The Court of Appeal had previously denied his application for leave to appeal out of time, concluding that applying the decision in Dickey v R would not have led to a different outcome. Mr. Renata now sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues in this case centred on the principles governing extensions of time for leave to appeal and the appropriate sentence for a young person who commits murder. Mr. Renata argued that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the principles set out in Kriel v R, and that the Court of Appeal had been reluctant to grant leave to appeal out of time in similar cases. He also contended that young people who commit murder should not be sentenced to life imprisonment, challenging the correctness of Dickey.

The Supreme Court found that the principles for granting an extension of time were well-established and did not require revisiting. The Court noted that the application of these principles was fact-specific, and the Court of Appeal had properly considered the interests of justice in this case. Regarding the sentence, the Court found no error in the Court of Appeal's conclusion that a different sentencing outcome was unlikely under Dickey. The Court emphasised the seriousness of the offence and Mr. Renata's high level of culpability, despite his age and personal circumstances.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for an extension of time, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal. The Court's decision upheld the finality of the Court of Appeal's judgment and affirmed the appropriateness of Mr. Renata's sentence.

Orders