Rewa v Police - [2015] NZHC 2459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-000085 [2015] NZHC 2459

BETWEEN
CAMERON LEE REWA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 October 2015

Appearances:

C A Morgan for Appellant
K B Bell for Crown

Judgment:

8 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Cameron Rewa appeals his sentence of one year, nine months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge MacAskill for one charge of injuring with intent to injure,1 on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Background facts

[2] The facts which gave rise to this charge occurred in the early morning hours of 13 December 2014. Mr Rewa was drinking with associates at the time and was heavily intoxicated.

[3] At about 2.30 am, the 50 year old victim was walking on the opposite side of the road. He yelled out to Mr Rewa, inquiring as to what bars were open. Mr Rewa responded abusively, crossed the road, and punched the victim once in the face without warning. The force of the blow rendered him unconscious and caused him
to fall to the ground and strike his head.

1 New Zealand Police v Rewa [2015] NZDC 15414.

[4] The victim was admitted to hospital, where he received treatment for concussion, a fractured eye socket and a large laceration to the back of his head. The laceration required around 12 stitches. Surgery was ultimately required for the fractured eye socket, involving the insertion of a titanium mesh.

Principles applying to appeal

[5] Mr Rewa may appeal his sentence as of right. Pursuant to s 250 of the

Criminal Procedure Act 2011, he must show that:

(a) there was an error in the sentence (for any reason); and

(b) a different sentence should be imposed.

[6] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that an accepted ground of error is where the sentence is “manifestly excessive”, notwithstanding that there is no express reference to this in s 250.2

The District Court sentencing

[7] In adopting a starting point of two years, six months’ imprisonment, Judge MacAskill considered the aggravating factors to be that it was an attack which took a vulnerable victim by surprise and the attack was completely unprovoked. He noted that the fact that there was only one hit did not reduce culpability substantially, because he saw the objective of such street assaults was to “win” by incapacitating the victim by knocking him down.

[8] No uplift for previous convictions was applied, but equally, despite a letter of apology to the victim, he did not consider that the remorse justified any reduction of sentence beyond that given for Mr Rewa’s guilty plea. There was however an uplift of two months to account for the fact the offending occurring while Mr Rewa was already subject to a sentence. From the adjusted figure of two years, eight months, a
discount of four months was applied to recognise Mr Rewa’s attempts at

2 Tutakangahou v R [2014] NZCA 279.

rehabilitation, and then a further full 25 per…

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 Rewa v Police

Details

AGLC: Rewa v Police [2015] NZHC 2459
Case: [2015] NZHC 2459
Decision Date: 8 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cameron Rewa appeals against his sentence of one year, nine months’ imprisonment imposed for one charge of injuring with intent to injure, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The offending occurred on 13 December 2014, when Mr Rewa, who was heavily intoxicated, punched the victim in the face, causing him to fall and suffer concussion, a fractured eye socket and a laceration requiring stitches. The appeal hinges on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The court must consider the starting point, any adjustments made by the District Court, and whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.

In assessing the starting point, the court compared the case with analogous authorities, finding that the starting point of two years, six months was excessive. The court considered the case comparable to Elizalde v Police, where the starting point was two years, one month’s imprisonment, and concluded that a starting point of two years, one month was appropriate. Following the District Court’s sentencing process, the court adjusted the starting point by two months for offending while subject to a sentence, and discounted it by four months for Mr Rewa’s attempts at rehabilitation, reaching an adjusted starting point of 23 months’ imprisonment. With a 25 per cent discount for the guilty plea, the final sentence should be 17 months’ imprisonment.

Considering the reduced sentence, the court found the original sentence manifestly excessive and a different sentence should be imposed. The court accepted that home detention could be appropriate in this case, given Mr Rewa’s age, lack of prior convictions, rehabilitative efforts, family support, positive employment references and no issues with compliance. However, the court noted that the address for home detention identified in the pre-sentence report was no longer available. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence and substituted it with one year, five months’ imprisonment, while granting leave to apply for a sentence of home detention once a suitable alternative address was proposed.

The court ordered that if home detention was applied for, it should be subject to special conditions, including attending and completing a programme to target alcohol abuse, working with a probation officer to address violence propensity and refraining from consuming alcohol or illicit drugs. The reparation aspect of the sentence remained intact.

Orders