Before trial Mr Te Kani pleaded guilty to:
(a)two charges of manslaughter;[1]
(b)one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine;[2]
(c)two charges of being an accessory after the fact of murder;[3] and
(d)four charges of neglect of a child.[4]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, ss 160, 171 and 177; the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
[2]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b) and (2)(a); the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
[3]Crimes Act 1961, s 176; the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
[4]Section 195; the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
On 29 November 2018 Davison J in the High Court at Rotorua sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.[5]
[5]R v Te Kani [2018] NZHC 3134.
Mr Te Kani appeals his sentence. He says:
(a)the starting point for the two charges of manslaughter was too high; and
(b)the discount for totality was insufficient.

Procedural background

In addition to Mr Te Kani, three other men faced charges arising out of the deaths of Raymond and James Fleet on 7 August 2017. The principal was Martin Hone. He beat the Fleets to death with a spade. Before trial Mr Hone pleaded guilty to two charges of murder as well as a related charge of manufacturing methamphetamine and two charges of threatening to kill.[6] On each murder charge he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years.
[6]R v Hone [2018] NZHC 2605.
The two other men were Zen Pulemoana and Mikaere Hura. Each faced two charges of murder. Both went to trial. Mr Hura faced an additional charge of possessing equipment capable of being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and one charge of possessing materials capable of being used in such manufacture. The jury found Mr Pulemoana guilty of James Fleet’s murder and guilty of manslaughter in respect of Raymond Fleet. Mr Hura was found guilty of the manslaughter of both Fleets and guilty on both methamphetamine charges.
Mr Pulemoana appealed his murder conviction. That appeal was dismissed by this Court.[7]

Application to extend the time allowed for filing

[7]Pulemoana v R [2019] NZCA 293; leave to appeal refused in Pulemoana v R [2019] NZSC 131.

Mr Te Kani filed an application to extend the time allowed for filing. This was because the appeal was filed two days late. He has filed an affidavit in support. By way of explanation he said the delay was caused by a combination of factors, including changes to his custodial…

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 Te Kani v R

Details

AGLC: Te Kani v R [2020] NZCA 69
Case: [2020] NZCA 69
Decision Date: 19 March 2020 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richard Tuwhakarongo Te Roroa Te Kani appeals his sentence. He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for two charges of manslaughter, one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine, two charges of being an accessory after the fact of murder, and four charges of neglect of a child. Te Kani submits that the starting point for the two charges of manslaughter was too high and that the discount for totality was insufficient. The Crown submits that the sentence was appropriate and within range.

The Court of Appeal grants the appellant leave to file his appeal two days late. The appeal is dismissed. The starting point for the manslaughter charges was not too high as Te Kani was an active participant in the events leading up to the deaths of Raymond and James Fleet. The totality adjustment was adequate and the final sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was within range. The Court of Appeal finds that the Judge was entitled to take into account Te Kani's role in the methamphetamine manufacturing operation in setting the starting point for both the manslaughter and methamphetamine charges. The Court of Appeal also finds that the totality adjustment was adequate and that the final sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was within range.

Orders