Taramoeroa (aka Matekuare) v Police

[2025] NZHC 712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000018

[2025] NZHC 712

BETWEEN

KEVIN HARVEY TARAMOEROA (aka ANTONYO KEV MATEKUARE)

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	25 March 2025
Counsel:	CHB Megala on behalf of LE Kelly for Appellant FI Ganchi for Respondent
Judgment:	31 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 31 March 2025 at 2 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland.

Public Defence Service, Auckland.

TARAMOEROA (aka MATEKUARE) v POLICE [2025] NZHC 712 [31 March 2025]

[1]                  This sentence appeal  raises a narrow issue  concerning  mitigatory features. A confined judgment is, therefore, appropriate.

[2]                  Antonyo Matekuare pleaded guilty to two charges: injuring with intent to injure, and  breaching  release  conditions.  The  background  was  captured  by Judge K J Glubb at sentencing:1

[3]                   The facts briefly are that you and the victim in this matter are ex-partners. You have one child together who resides with the victim. She also has her nine year old son from a previous relationship living with her, and she was pregnant at the time.

[4]                   At about 11.28 am on 4 August 2024 you and the victim were at her home address. You argued over your abusive language towards the victim’s nine year old son. She took her son and the one year old daughter out to the car to leave the address, and then went back inside to collect her phone charger from the kitchen.

[5]                   You hugged the victim tightly from behind and pulled her from the kitchen to the bedroom. You then punched her once to the right eye and kneed her once to the head, causing the victim to briefly lose consciousness and collapse to the ground. She regained consciousness on the ground and you used your forearm to hit her three more times in the chest.

[6]                   She attempted to escape out the bedroom window but you grabbed her jacket from behind and pulled her back from the window. She stated that she could not breathe. You and the victim walked back to the kitchen so the victim could get a glass of water. You called out to the victim’s nine year old son telling him to come back inside.

[7]                   The victim left the address via the back door and collected her son, before running to a neighbour’s property to seek refuge.

[8]                   As a result, she suffered the black eye, swelling to her face, and she says she lost consciousness.

...

[10]      I have read the victim impact statement and she says that she suffered a very painful, swollen black eye and also bruising to her arm as a result. “It made me scared for me and my children’s safety and that isn’t the first time that I have been hurt and maybe the next time my kids could be the ones burying me.” That very clearly represents her fear in that set of circumstances.

[11]      When I look at matters which aggravate the circumstances for you personally, it is your previous conviction history. It is very significant and recent - some 16 for violence, five for threats, five for dishonesty, four for burglary, two for wilful damage, two for aggravated robbery. Also, when I look at your ability to comply, four for either breaching post-detention conditions or parole, and three for failing to answer your bail, two for breach

1      Police v Matekuare [2024] NZDC 30648.

of community work, and one for driving whilst disqualified. I also note that you offended whilst subject to sentence at that time. You were on release conditions.

[3]                  The Judge imposed a term of imprisonment of two years and two weeks.    Mr Matekuare contends the Judge erred in declining discount for rehabilitative efforts and his background. On his behalf, Ms Kelly contends the Judge should have afforded a five percent discount for each.

[4]                  The contention is this. While remanded in custody, Mr Matekuare completed several workbooks: Choosing Change, Meth Self-Help Strategies, Alcohol and Other Drugs Brief Support Programme, Problem Solving, Goal Setting, Values and Beliefs, and Alcohol and Drug Relapse. Ms Kelly contends these efforts warranted recognition. Ms Kelly also highlights Mr Matekuare’s unfortunate background, and one all too familiar to the Courts, which involved exposure to alcohol and violence, gang fraternisation as a teenager, and frequent offending from that age. A global deduction of 10 percent would reduce the sentence by two months and two weeks (from two years and two weeks’ imprisonment to one year and ten months).

[5]I make four points.

[6]                  First, there is a distinction between sustained rehabilitative efforts on the part of a defendant and early, tentative rehabilitative steps. The former is captured by the decision of the Supreme Court in Berkland v R.2 The latter is apparent in Sagote v R, in which the absence of a discount was upheld on appeal.3

[7]                  Second, while Mr Matekuare is to be commended for his completion of the workbooks, his rehabilitative progress falls within the latter of the two categories above. Mr Matekuare’s pre-sentence report is very much a mixed bag. He denied important aspects of the offending and gave “contradictory information regarding his use of drugs”. Moreover, Mr Matekuare was assessed as presenting a “medium” likelihood of re-offending and a “high risk of harm to others”.

2      Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509.

3      Sagote v R [2023] NZHC 1008.

[8]                  Third, the Judge declined to discount the sentence for Mr Matekuare’s background as he was not persuaded it contributed causatively to the offending. While that conclusion is (plainly) open to debate, it is beyond argument Mr Matekuare has a significant history of violence, including family violence, which has not been curbed. In Berkland, the Supreme Court said:4

The relevance of an offender’s background does not in any way reduce the importance of acknowledging, through sentences, the harm caused by an offender, and particularly the harm to victims. Indeed, provision is also made for the court to hear the perspectives of victims through victim impact statements. There are other sentencing purposes and principles such as deterrence, denunciation and community protection. Where offending is particularly serious these principles will usually be more powerfully engaged. Logically, there will come a point where background, even if it has contributed to the offending, can have no impact. But that will be a matter for careful consideration on the facts of the offence and the offender.

[9]                  This is why I said in another case recently: “It is distinctly arguable that some doctrine of attenuation in relation to background applies.”5 I made those remarks in an oral judgment; Berkland reveals the phrase “distinctly arguable” as otiose.

[10]              Returning to this case,  Mr Matekuare  committed the index offending  on     4 August 2024. Mr Matekuare has these convictions in relation to the same victim:

(a)Common assault (22 April 2023).

(b)Assault with intent to injure (23 February 2023).

(c)Assault on person in family relationship (12 December 2022).

(d)Wilful damage (12 December 2022).

(e)Impedes breathing (16 April 2021).

(f)Assault with intent to injure (16 April 2021).

4      Berkland v R, above n 2, at [94] (footnotes omitted).

5      Heihei v Police [2025] NZHC 589 at [10].

It was therefore open to the Judge to decline discount based on Mr Matekuare’s (admittedly unfortunate) background.

[11]              Fourth, the most important question is whether the ultimate sentence is manifestly excessive. The authorities identified by Mr Ganchi on behalf of the respondent — Kuavai v R6 and Thompson v Police7 — confirm it is not.

Result

[12]The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

……………………………..

Downs J

6      Kuavai v R [2017] NZCA 241.

7      Thompson v Police [2017] NZHC 3039.