FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2018-404-211
[2018] NZHC 2453
BETWEEN
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Appellant
AND
RACHAEL HETA
Respondent
Hearing:
21 August 2018
Counsel:
M J Lillico for Appellant
L Hughes and N Murden for Respondent
Judgment:
18 September 2018
[REDACTED] JUDGMENT OF WHATA J
This judgment was delivered by me on 18 September 2018 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….
Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington
Public Defence Service, Manukau
SOLICITOR-GENERAL v HETA [2018] NZHC 2453 [18 September 2018]
[1] Rachael Heta pleaded guilty on two charges, one of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one of common assault. Judge Moala sentenced Ms Heta on those charges to three years, two months imprisonment. This comprised a start point of six years eight months, a 30 per cent discount for personal circumstances described in a report pursuant to s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002, a 10 per cent discount for participation in a restorative justice process and a 25 per cent discount for guilty plea.1
Issues
[2] The Solicitor-General acknowledges that “an argument might made that 30% was warranted as a discount for hardship in Ms Heta’s case because of the need to recognise Maori post-colonial experience and to meet the Parliamentary intention underlying s 27.” It is submitted however that Keil v R precludes a discount of 30 per cent. Keil says:2
Our sentencing regime cannot be seen to condone a particular group’s use of violent force to exact physical retribution. Similarly, cultural norms cannot excuse that conduct for some groups but not for others. While those norms may help to explain, they can never justify offending of such severity as occurred here.
[3] As a result, the Solicitor-General submits that the usual discounts for hardship apply and thus a 30 per cent discount for Ms Heta’s personal circumstances was too high.
[4]Two central questions are therefore addressed in this judgment:
(a)Does the Court of Appeal’s decision in Keil v R preclude a discount of 30 per cent for matters raised in a s 27 report? And/or
[5] Ms Heta became angry at her partner, the victim, believing that he was having an affair. She took a steak knife from the next door neighbours (where she had been drinking) and went to confront the victim at her house. Her friend tried to calm her down but Ms Heta punched her two times and told her to “fuck off”. She said she was going to stab the victim.
[6] Ms Heta then confronted the victim, who had been sleeping, about the suspected affair and stabbed him multiple times to the chest and under arm area. The victim received four stab wounds…
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 Solicitor-General v Heta
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453
Case
[2018] NZHC 2453
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the sentence imposed on Rachael Heta, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and common assault. The key issues were whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Keil v R precluded a discount of 30 per cent for matters raised in a s 27 report and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court found that Keil did not preclude a discount of 30 per cent for s 27 factors and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was dismissed.
The Court examined the relevance of systemic Māori deprivation in sentencing and emphasised that s 27 information has been applied in respect of various sentencing criteria. The Court rejected the Solicitor-General's argument that Keil precluded a discount of 30 per cent for s 27 matters, stating that Keil was directed to Mr Paul's specific offending and cultural explanation for it and did not lay down a general rule about discounts for personal background factors. The Court held that it remained incumbent on a sentencing judge to weigh the facts of the particular case.
The Court also considered whether the end sentence was manifestly inadequate, noting that there was no clear unifying principle for applying discounts for deprivation. The Court concluded that the combined discount of 40 per cent for personal mitigating factors was not excessive, given the facts identified in the s 27 report and the positive outcome of the restorative justice process. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and dismissed the appeal.