BRATTLE-HEMARA HAEANA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2165

BRATTLE-HEMARA HAEANA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2165 [18 August 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDPALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE PAPAIOEA ROHECRI-2021-454-23[2021] NZHC 2165BETWEEN CHEA PARATENE CHARLES BRATTLE-HEMARA HAEANAAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 18 August 2021 (AVL)Counsel: P A Walker for AppellantJ J Harvey for RespondentJudgment: 18 August 2021JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J[1] Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana appeals a sentence of 13 months' imprisonmentimposed on a number of charges – breach of protection order (x 2), common assault,assaulting police, wilful damage, threatening behaviour (x 2) and failure to answerbail.1 The sentence followed upon a sentencing indication of that figure. Thatindication included credit for a guilty plea but no other mitigating factors. The Judgesaid he would consider that issue at sentencing, which he did but decided no furtheradjustment was appropriate. Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana appeals that aspect of thesentence.[2] Matters referred to at the District Court, and again on appeal, include remorse,a letter of apology and efforts at rehabilitation. Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana hadindicated a willingness to engage in restorative justice, but it did not occur. Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana has also made contact with Raukawa Whānau Ora, an iwi-based entity1 New Zealand Police v Brattle-Hemara Haeana [2021] NZDC 14669.that offers various health and well-being services and courses. Ms Walker submits thatthese are matters which the Act recognises and which regularly are given somematerial recognition in the sentencing and this should have occurred here.[3] The respondent's submissions are reflected in the decision and need not beseparately detailed.Decision[4] The offending on which Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana was sentenced involvedhis former partner who is the mother of three children with Mr Brattle-HemaraHaeana. One night the appellant asked to spend the night on her floor. This wasallowed but things turned nasty. Some time in the evening the appellant tried to get inher bed; she resisted. Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana jumped on top of her and punchedher repeatedly. At some point he was locked outside but smashed the back door to getin, and then further assaulted the victim.[5] Two months later, Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana was arrested on a differentmatter. He resisted and once in the police car he spat at one of the officers.[6] Five months later, on 7 January 2021, Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana parked inthe driveway next door to his former partner's address. By this time protection orderswere in place. The appellant made contact with his four-year-old child in breach ofthe orders, and then drove off when police arrived.[7] On 26 January the appellant failed to appear in court as required.[8] On 13 February Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana made contact through a video callwith his children knowing the former partner would be there. On that call hethreatened, in the hearing of the children, to shoot his former partner. He later madea gun gesture at the former partner's mother when she confronted him over hisconduct.[9] The Judge accepted the letter showed remorse but no understanding of theeffect of the conduct on the victim. No reason was otherwise given for no furtherdiscounts.[10] Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana was the beneficiary of a forward-lookingsentencing exercise. This is apparent in a generous, in my view, starting point of16 months' imprisonment and from the sentencing remarks. The Judge encouragedMr Brattle-Hemara Haeana to get assistance. This observation of the District Courtsentencing is made not to criticise but rather to explain why I consider the appeal iswithout merit.[11] The offending involved two significant assaults on a woman in her home. Oneinvolved a home invasion. There were two charges of threatening behaviour that couldhave been more seriously charged and a totally unacceptable assault on the police aswell as breaches of Court orders. Some offences must have been committed while onbail and Mr Brattle-Hemara Haeana has a considerable history of this type ofoffending.[12] The starting point of 16 months was generous and a final sentence less than thecurrent 13 months' imprisonment is not available. It would not meet the purposes ofthe Act, nor adequately respond to this offending. It follows that whether some smallallowance for the matters raised on appeal could have been made could not affect theoutcome.[13] The appeal is accordingly dismissed._______________________Simon France JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Palmerston North