The King v Jovan Aroha Zachariah Pora - [2024] NZHC 2951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-010376

[2024] NZHC 2951

THE KING

v

JOVAN AROHA ZACHARIAH PORA

Hearing: 11 October 2024

Counsel:

NE Walker and CM Fountain for Crown VJ Feyen for Defendant

Judgment:

11 October 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. VJ Feyen, Auckland.

R v PORA [2024] NZHC 2951 [11 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] Jovan Pora, earlier this year you were tried by a jury of kidnap and manslaughter in relation to Katelyn Rua-Tuhou. The jury found you guilty of kidnapping Ms Rua-Tuhou, but not guilty of manslaughter in relation to her death. I must pass sentence in accordance with those verdicts. It follows you are not for sentence in relation to Ms Rua-Tuhou’s death. The significance of this feature I shall return to.

The facts

[2] You and Ms Rua-Tuhou began a relationship in early 2020. You were then 18; she, 17. So, you were both young. Your relationship was marred by frequent arguments and break-ups, and given the evidence at trial, possessive and controlling behaviour on your part. That said, the two of you were clearly fond of each other. On the evening of 17 July 2022, you committed a serious assault on Ms Rua-Tuhou. You had been drinking. She made no complaint to the Police and the matter never went to court, but she left you for a time.

[3] On the evening of Christmas Day 2022, Ms Rua-Tuhou was celebrating with her whānau at their home. You were drinking with friends, elsewhere. You believed Ms Rua-Tuhou might have been unfaithful.

[4] In the early hours of Boxing Day, you drove to Ms Rua-Tuhou’s home. You did so for two reasons. First, you had been asked to return her to your parents’ home, where both of you were staying. She had been drinking and she was intoxicated. Second, you were angry about her alleged infidelity, and you wanted to confront her. Your anger was unquestionably fuelled by your intoxication.

[5] You arrived at the home a little after 2.32 am. You left there with Ms Rua-Tuhou at or about 3.15 the same morning. In that 40 minute or so window, you argued with Ms Rua-Tuhou’s father, Koroni Tuhou, an incident which appears to have been precipitated by you referring to Ms Rua-Tuhou as a “bitch”. You then argued with Ms Rua-Tuhou in your car, an event witnessed by her cousin. You kidnapped Ms Rua-Tuhou thereafter.

[6] The precise sequence remains unclear notwithstanding the trial. But, in the very least, you forcibly restrained Ms Rua-Tuhou from getting out of your car despite the interventions of her whānau. She could be heard screaming for help from inside the home, and you were seen holding her, including by her underwear, to prevent her getting out of your car. Neighbours testified of hearing a very nasty incident unfold. I have no doubt that at this point Ms Rua-Tuhou was very frightened of you.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The King v Jovan Aroha Zachariah Pora and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 2951
Decision Date: 11 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jovan Aroha Zachariah Pora was convicted of kidnapping Katelyn Rua-Tuhou, but acquitted of manslaughter in relation to her death. Downs J was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the kidnapping charge and address the Crown's and defence's arguments regarding sentencing. The Crown argued for a starting point of three to three and a half years' imprisonment, while the defence contended for a starting point of approximately two and a half years' imprisonment. Downs J settled on a starting point of two years and nine months' imprisonment, with an additional month for the driving offence. Downs J considered the defendant's background and found that while challenging, it did not contribute causatively to the offending. Downs J also found the defendant's remorse to be insincere, as he did not plead guilty to the kidnapping charge and provided implausible evidence at trial. Downs J acknowledged the defendant's potential for rehabilitation due to his age and progress in prison, and deducted 15% from the nominal sentence. Downs J ultimately decided on a sentence of 12 months' home detention for the kidnapping charge and a six-month disqualification from driving.

Downs J provided detailed reasoning for the sentence, taking into account the defendant's background, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation. Downs J found the defendant's background to be challenging but not causative of the offending, and his remorse to be insincere. Downs J also considered the defendant's age and potential for rehabilitation, and deducted 15% from the nominal sentence. Downs J ultimately decided on a sentence of 12 months' home detention for the kidnapping charge and a six-month disqualification from driving, acknowledging that the defendant had avoided prison by a narrow margin. The court's decision demonstrates a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

Orders