Police v Mita [2017] NZDC 1158 (24 January 2017)

Last Updated: 28 March 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT BLENHEIM

CRI-2016-006-001299 [2017] NZDC 1158

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Prosecutor

v

KAHUTIA MITA

_Defendant

Hearing:	24 January 2017
Appearances:	Sergeant M Harris for the Prosecutor R M Gould for the Defendant
Judgment:	24 January 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE P J BUTLER ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr Mita, I do not know if you can see them, but your whānau or some of them are here, your mother and partner are here, so I acknowledge their presence. I thank you for the letter which you have submitted to me through Ms Gould. That was a well-written apology and I have taken some notice of it.

[2] You are for sentence today, at age 34, on a charge of injuring with intent to injure. What happened, happened on 9 December last year and these were the facts. The victim is a 15 year old who you did not know. He is of average height and a lean to skinny build for a boy of his height. He is in the Tasman age group touch rugby team and their uniform was blue.

[3] You are described as tall, strong and solidly built. I can see you on screen so some part of that is true and you are an active member of the Mongrel Mob. The

_{Mongrel Mob’s colours, as everyone knows, are red as opposed to blue which is the}

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v KAHUTIA MITA [2017] NZDC 1158 [24 January 2017]

colour of your traditional rival gang Black Power. But there is no suggestion at all that this boy was a member of Black Power.

[4] At 6.30 pm on 9 December he and two of his friends were walking along Grove Road, Blenheim after training. He was still wearing his training uniform. They saw an associate of theirs across the road and called out to one another as they went past.

[5] Shortly afterwards they entered the KFC establishment, waited in line to be served. While he was waiting he sat down on a seat next to a window. The restaurant was busy at the time. At this time you entered in an agitated state and you saw him. You verbally abused him and proceeded to punch him twice in the head with a closed fist. The force of the blows caused his head to impact on the window and ricochet off the glass. You struck him with such force that it caused him to become dazed and confused, blood streamed from his nose and his bottom inside lip was cut against his teeth.

[6] You yelled to the victim, “This is what you get for fuckin with the Mongrel

Mob,” and left the restaurant.

[7] As a result of your attack on him, he suffered the following injuries, a fractured nose, a broken tooth which will require surgery, significant bruising around his nose and eyes, a split lower lip and concussion. He suffered some temporary memory loss from the concussion.

[8] You declined to make a statement at the time. The victim and his father have filed victim impact statements. The victim for his part is pretty matter of fact in his statement, he just says what happened to him, but was obviously astounded at being attacked and still remains very surprised by what happened to him. That is the attitude of his father as well.

[9] Your previous convictions give me cause for concern. You have

13 convictions in your past for violence and these have escalated at a rapid rate since

2009 which was when your first conviction for violence was committed. That was a

charge of common assault. Your last conviction was in August 2013, a charge of injuring with intent, the same charge that you are facing today. You were sent to prison for three years on that matter and you were subject to release conditions at the time of this offending.

[10] The Parole Board, I am told, declined all your applications for bail and only set conditions as the time neared the end of your sentence.

[11] The pre-sentence report says you are a high risk of re-offending. You said you were affected by alcohol on the day and that you were unaware of the age of the victim. The recommendation is an inevitable one, it is a sentence of imprisonment and of course an electronically monitored form of sentence is not available today.

[12] The purposes that I adopt for sentencing are to protect the community against violence and to denounce and deter your conduct. The principles of sentencing that I have regard to are, ss 8 and 16. Imprisonment seems to me to be the only available sentence to address the purpose of protecting the community, denouncing your conduct and deterring others from committing violent acts.

[13] Both the police and Ms Gould have filed submissions to me about the sort of sentence I should impose. Both accept that a sentence of imprisonment will follow.

[14] The police suggest a starting point of three years with an uplift for your previous convictions and the fact that this was offending committed while you were still subject to conditions. The police acknowledge you should get the full available credit for your guilty plea.

[15] Ms Gould says that the starting point should be two and a half years’ imprisonment with any uplift for previous convictions limited to three months. That discounts should be available to you for an offer of emotional harm of $200 which you have made towards the victim and the letter of apology which you have forwarded through me and the full discount should be available to you for your guilty plea.

[16] I do adopt the starting point suggested by Ms Gould. The starting point is two and a half years’ imprisonment. That includes the aggravating features of the fact that the victim was only 15 years old at the time and the size disparity between you and him. He was just a boy. You are a grown man and a powerfully built one at that.

[17] I uplift that two and a half year starting point by six months for your previous convictions for violence which as I say have accumulated rapidly between 2009 and

2016. I also uplift the sentence further by another three months for offending while you are subject to conditions. So that makes the sentence three years and three months.

[18] Discounts are available to you as follows, for your apology and for the factors which are included in the psychological assessment provided to me by Ms Gould, there will be a discount of six months. I do not detail all those factors, some are private to you, but the psychologist says that you were suffering from major depression at the time, recurrent, severe and without psychotic features, generalised anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. These matters affect you and affect you greatly and they offer some explanation as to why you behaved in the way you did. The discount for those factors and the apology is six months.

[19] That reduces the sentence to two years nine months. Then I give you the full

25 percent discount for your prompt guilty plea. That reduces the sentence by a further eight months to two years and one month’s imprisonment. At that length of sentence, Mr Mita, I do not set the conditions the Parole Board does when you first see them after a third of the sentence.

[20] Two years one month sentence of imprisonment.

P J Butler

District Court Judge