Rongonui v The Queen - [2017] NZCA 206

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA166/2017
[2017] NZCA 206

BETWEEN	REECE TAURAKAHA RONGONUI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	4 May 2017
Court:	Brown, Mallon and Wylie JJ
Counsel:	J C Hannam for Appellant C A Brook for Respondent
Judgment:	24 May 2017 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal is granted.
BThe appeal against conviction is allowed.
CThe conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is quashed and a conviction for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm substituted.
DThe conviction for aggravated burglary is quashed and a conviction for burglary substituted.
EThe sentences of nine years’ imprisonment and the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment are quashed. Concurrent sentences of three years and four months’ imprisonment are substituted on each of the amended charges.
FThe strike warning issued on 16 September 2014 in respect of the aggravated burglary conviction is cancelled.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

Introduction

After a Judge-alone trial before Judge Roberts in the District Court at New Plymouth, Mr Rongonui was convicted of one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of threatening to kill.[1]
[1]R v Rongonui DC New Plymouth CRI-2013-043-1313, 5 September 2014.
On 16 September 2014 he was sentenced by Judge Roberts to nine years’ imprisonment on the first two charges and three years’ imprisonment on the third, the sentences to run concurrently. An MPI of six years was imposed.[2]
[2]R v Rongonui DC New Plymouth CRI-2013-043-1313, 16 September 2014 [Sentencing notes].
An appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by Peters J on 14 December 2015.[3] However the proper first appeal court in respect of Mr Rongonui’s conviction appeal was the Court of Appeal, not the High Court, as he initially elected a jury trial.[4] For the reasons explained in the minute of Kós P dated 21 February 2017 we consider that the decision of Peters J must therefore be treated as a nullity.
[3]Rongonui v R [2015] NZHC 546. The conviction appeal was dismissed but the sentence appeal allowed, with the sentences of nine years’ imprisonment reduced to eight years and three months.
[4]See the reasoning in Jackson v R [2016] NZCA 627.
The present appeal was filed out of time on 7 March 2017 and consequently an extension of time is required. As the application for leave to appeal out of time was not opposed, it is granted.

Appeal against conviction

One ground of Mr Rongonui’s appeal against conviction was that the level of injury sustained by the complainant was not sufficient to qualify as a wound as that word is used in s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. Related to that issue, Mr Hannam for Mr Rongonui contended that one of the Judge’s several interventions (the number of which were the basis of a separate ground…

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 Rongonui v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rongonui v The Queen [2017] NZCA 206
Case: [2017] NZCA 206
Decision Date: 24 May 2017 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rongonui v The Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to decide an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant, Reece Taurakaha Rongonui, was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary and threatening to kill. The sentences imposed were nine years' imprisonment for the first two charges and three years' imprisonment for the third charge, all sentences to run concurrently, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years imposed. The appellant appealed against both the conviction and the sentence. The appeal against conviction was based on the argument that the injury sustained by the complainant did not qualify as a wound under s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The appeal against sentence was based on the argument that the sentences imposed were too severe.

The Court of Appeal found that the conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm should be substituted with a conviction for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and the conviction for aggravated burglary should be substituted with a conviction for burglary. The Court of Appeal also found that the sentences of nine years' imprisonment and the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment were quashed, and concurrent sentences of three years and four months' imprisonment were substituted on each of the amended charges. The Court of Appeal also cancelled the strike warning issued on 16 September 2014 in respect of the aggravated burglary conviction.

Orders