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

[…]

[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.

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:

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

(b) Is the end sentence manifestly inadequate?

[…]

Outcome

[68] In answer to the central questions I find:

(a) Keil does not preclude discounts of 30 per cent for s 27 factors.

(b) The sentence was not so inadequate as to require adjustment.

[69] The appeal is dismissed.

Full judgment: 2018NZHC2453SGvHeta.pdf

© Scoop Media