Ruri v The King - [2024] NZHC 1563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000210

CRI-2024-404-000211 [2024] NZHC 1563

BETWEEN
SELENA RURI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 June 2024

Appearances:

M J Taylor-Cyphers for Appellant J A E Tausi for Respondent

Judgment:

14 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 14 June 2024 at 12 noon
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date ………………………..

RURI v R [2024] NZHC 1563 [14 June 2024]

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against sentence in relation to the following four charges:

(a)Disfiguring with intent to injure;1

(b)Driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent);2

(c)Failing to answer District Court bail;3 and

(d)Refusing to permit a blood specimen (third or subsequent).4

[2] In the District Court, the appellant, Ms Ruri, pleaded guilty to the four charges. She was sentenced to two years five months’ imprisonment. The District Court Judge also ordered an alcohol interlock sentence.5

[3] Ms Ruri contends that the Judge erred by adopting too high a starting point (three years’ imprisonment) for the lead charge of disfiguring and/or an excessive uplift for the remaining charges. It is argued that he was in error in not adjusting the starting point for totality. Ms Ruri further contends that the 35 per cent discount applied for personal mitigating factors was inadequate and that, had greater discounts properly been offered to her, the end sentence would have fallen within range where a sentence of home detention would have been available. She submits that a sentence of home detention ought to have been imposed as the least restrictive outcome.

[4] The Crown opposes the appeal and says there was no error in the sentencing decision. It says the end sentence reached was not manifestly excessive.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1) and (4): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000 and a minimum mandatory disqualification for more than one year.
3      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a): maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$2,000.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 60(1)(a), 60(3) and 72(1)(a): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000 and a minimum mandatory disqualification for more than one year.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 65AC.

Factual background

Charge 1 – Disfiguring with intent to injure

[5] The victim is the biological daughter of the appellant. At the time of the offending the victim was six years old. The victim had been raised by her great-aunt since birth and had limited contact with the appellant.

[6] In September 2022, and as arranged with Oranga Tamariki, the victim flew to Auckland to stay with the appellant during the school holidays. She was to be returned to her great-aunt’s care just over a week later. One evening in early October…

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 Ruri v The King

Details

AGLC: Ruri v The King [2024] NZHC 1563
Case: [2024] NZHC 1563
Decision Date: 14 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Selena Ruri appealed against her sentence for four charges, including disfiguring with intent to injure, driving with excess breath alcohol, failing to answer District Court bail, and refusing to permit a blood specimen. In the District Court, she was sentenced to two years and five months' imprisonment, with an alcohol interlock sentence. Ruri argued that the starting point and the discount for personal mitigating factors were inappropriate, suggesting that the sentence should have been home detention instead. The Crown opposed the appeal, maintaining that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether there was an error in the imposed sentence. It found that the starting point of three years for the disfiguring charge was appropriate, considering the aggravating features such as the vulnerability of the victim and the extreme extent of violence. The eight-month uplift for the additional charges was deemed reasonable due to the aggravating features of the driving offences. Regarding the discounts, the court concluded that the 10 per cent discount for addiction and remorse was within the available range and that the full 25 per cent discount for the guilty plea was generous. The court ultimately found that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive, dismissing the appeal.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders