Rikihana v R - [2010] NZCA 405

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA764/2009
[2010] NZCA 405
BETWEENADRIAN MANAWANUI RIKIHANA

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:14 July 2010

Court:Hammond, Chisholm and Andrews JJ
Counsel:J N Briscoe for Appellant

K A L Bicknell for Respondent

Judgment:10 September 2010 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chisholm J)
[1]        At trial Adrian Rikihana was found guilty by a High Court jury of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so. He was found not guilty on a charge of attempted murder which arose out of the same events. Heath J sentenced Mr Rikihana to 12 and a half years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.[1]
[1]      R v Rikihana HC Rotorua CRI 2008-063-4316, 30 November 2009.
[2]        Initially Mr Rikihana appealed against both conviction and sentence. However, his conviction appeal was later abandoned. His appeal against sentence relies on two primary grounds: that relevant mental health issues were not presented to, or considered by, the sentencing Judge and that the starting point was too high.
The offending
[3]        For a short time before the offending Mr Rikihana and the complainant had been in a relationship. The complainant was two months pregnant and her five year old daughter was staying with them at the time.
[4]        On 12 September 2008 Mr Rikihana went to bed early because he had to get up for work at 3.30am the next morning. Mr Rikihana was a driver within the logging and forestry industry at Murupara. After Mr Rihihana went to bed the complainant took his car without his knowledge and went to a party. Unfortunately Mr Rikihana’s car was stolen while the complainant was at the party.
[5]        When the complainant was walking home during the early hours of the morning she became involved in a confrontation with a male who had been at the party and a fight ensued. Although she was kicked and punched during this fight the only apparent injury was a cut above her eye.
[6]        By the time the complainant arrived home at around 3.30am Mr Rikihana was ready to go to work. When told that his car had been stolen Mr Rikihana became angry and physically assaulted the complainant on the head using a lump of wood and an axe handle. He also kicked and punched her. Eventually the complainant was rendered unconscious in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor. Then Mr Rikihana became concerned about her condition and called an ambulance. He accompanied her to Rotorua hospital.
[7]        On arrival at hospital the complainant was in a coma and in a serious condition. She scored only six on the Glasgow scale, which rates levels of brain function. Fifteen is the highest point and three the lowest point on the scale. She suffered extensive bruising, numerous facial lacerations and fractures, a fractured left leg, and major brain trauma. Although she had been involved in violence earlier…

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 Rikihana v R

Details

AGLC: Rikihana v R [2010] NZCA 405
Case: [2010] NZCA 405
Decision Date: 10 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adrian Rikihana, the appellant, was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after assaulting a woman with a lump of wood and an axe handle. He was sentenced to 12 and a half years imprisonment, with a minimum of five years. The appeal against sentence relied on two grounds: that relevant mental health issues were not presented to, or considered by, the sentencing judge, and that the starting point was too high.

The court considered the submissions made by both the appellant's counsel and the Crown's counsel. The appellant's counsel argued that mental health issues were not presented to the sentencing judge and that a further psychiatric assessment was justified. However, the Crown's counsel argued that there was no formal or conclusive diagnosis of a personality disorder that could have a bearing on the appellant's sentence. The court concluded that there was no merit in the ground of appeal related to mental health considerations.

The court also considered the ground of appeal related to the starting point being too high. The court found that the starting point of 12 years adopted by the sentencing judge was within the range available to him and that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders