R v Rapatini [2022] NZDC 8092 (6 May 2022)

Last Updated: 7 March 2023

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE

CRI-2020-063-002791

[2022] NZDC 8092

THE QUEEN

v

LARREN RAPATINI

Hearing:	6 May 2022
Appearances:	L Evans for the Crown A Cresswell for the Defendant
Judgment:	6 May 2022

NOTES OF JUDGE R G MARSHALL ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr Rapatini, you are here for sentence today on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That carries a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment. You can remain seated and at the end I will ask you to stand when I formally pronounce a sentence on you.

[2] The summary of facts indicates that the victim was on a working holiday in New Zealand and he was working at a restaurant in Taupō. On 26 August 2020, he got invited to a housewarming in Taupō and he attended that. At about 1.40 am, you arrived at that address and you there encountered the female occupant and her sister arguing over the victim and something about her kissing him. That angered you.

[3] You found the victim, invited him into the kitchen for something to eat, you then picked up a pairing knife off the kitchen table. That knife had a blade about 10

R v LARREN RAPATINI [2022] NZDC 8092 [6 May 2022]

centimetres in length. You then approached the victim and stabbed him to the abdomen. He fled to the lounge where he collapsed, you followed and you kicked him once to the head saying he had gotten too close to your brother’s missus and yelled out: “The mighty Mongrel Mob rogue.” You then left and he was left, the victim, lying on the floor bleeding profusely. He was losing a large quantity of blood and he was flown by helicopter to Waikato Hospital in a life-threatening situation.

[4] In short, his injuries were he received a split pancreas, sustained a critical loss of blood and underwent three surgeries at Waikato Hospital. His spleen was removed and part of his pancreas which had ruptured. He has an extremely long scar down his stomach and now takes medication. You have heard the details of that, which I will comment on a little later, in the victim impact statement that was read. He has had the courage to turn up to court today to be part of this sentencing process. There will be little however that this Court can do by way of a sentence that will restore him to the position he was in. In other words, a fit, healthy young man prior to what happened that night.

[5] You have previous convictions, a number of them, but not of a serious kind, not in the category of this offending. The Crown have filed written submissions and referred to R v Taueki which is the leading case on charges involving grievous bodily harm.1 There the Crown have identified a number of aggravating features to this: extreme violence, it was unprovoked and gratuitous violence. The victim was somewhat vulnerable because he had no idea what was coming and was completely unaware you were going to stab him with a knife. There was some amount of premeditation. The Crown accepts not to a high extent. I agree with that but you did lure him into the kitchen for the purpose then of dealing to him but that did not involve any sophisticated planning in itself. There was also the attack to the head because after the stabbing, you then kicked him in the head. Once again, when he was vulnerable and prone on the ground.

[6] The most aggravating circumstances are the last two though: the causing of a serious injury. I have already referred to the organ damage and loss that the victim

1 R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174; [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).

has suffered. That now means and that is set out very clearly in his victim impact statement that he is in pain often. He can no longer play sport or coach which was a big part of his life and working life. He faces years or rehabilitation for his pancreas to heal so he can properly digest food. He will be on medication for years, takes antibiotics everyday and will need to do so for two years. He needs injections also by way of vaccination because the spleen has been removed. At his age at 24, it is pretty hard for him to get to grips with how his life has changed so dramatically all in the blink of an eye and as long as it took for you to plunge a knife into him. He will have those physical and mental effects now for probably most if not the rest of his life.

[7] I have already indicated that there is no sentence this Court can pass that is going to make amends for that harm caused to him or put him back in the position he was prior to that senseless attack. The last aggravating feature that is present to a high degree is the use of a weapon, here a knife which is classified and characterised as a lethal weapon.

[8] The case of Taueki sets out a number of bands for the Court to consider depending on the seriousness of the case as to what range of sentence is likely. Band 1 sets out a range of three to six years and that is appropriate for violence at the lower end where there is only one aggravating factor and it is not appropriate for extreme violence or violence which is life-threatening. Band 2 is five to 10 years’ imprisonment and that band is appropriate for offending involving two or three of the aggravating factors that I have talked about. Band 3 is nine to 14 years’ imprisonment and that encompasses serious offending where three or more aggravating features are present and where the combination of aggravating features is particularly grave.

[9] Here, the Crown say that it falls at the cusp or the overlap of band 2, the upper end and the lower end of band 3. They have referred to the five aggravating features. Two are particularly serious and the other three to a lesser extent. Crown submit a starting point of nine to 10 years’ imprisonment would be the appropriate starting point. They consider that there is no personal aggravating factors that require any uplift as far as your previous convictions are concerned.

[10] The Crown say you should get a 10 per cent allowance for your guilty plea because it took 19 months to resolve this matter and in the end, there were only minor amendments to the summary of facts and the withdrawal of the threat to kill charge. The Crown also seek a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent. They accept a modest discount because there is some nexus between cultural factors and your offending but it should be modest and also a modest discount for you.

[11] With the defence, Ms Cresswell on your behalf acknowledges the Taueki aggravating features but due to the emphasis that the Crown place on it submit that it falls in the middle of band 2 and that eight to an eight-and-a-half year starting point would be appropriate. With a guilty plea, 25 per cent. Ms Cresswell says she is the third counsel. There was the interruption of COVID-19 and you being moved from prison to prison and that matters such as disclosure were outstanding for some time.

[12] For the s 27 cultural report and I have had the benefit of that, that goes into your background in some detail. I need not talk about that at length. It is a comprehensive report but it certainly speaks of you growing up in a dysfunctional and violent background and at an early age, becoming associated with the gangs and with drugs.

[13] The defence, Ms Cresswell, submits 35 per cent allowance for that – the matters contained in the cultural report, five per cent for extra remorse which are in the pre-sentence report and a further allowance of 20 per cent for youth. From the starting point of eight years, she submits that really in the round that is somewhere around the 50 per cent discount to 55 per cent discount would be appropriate. In other words half or just less that half of the eight years and submits that no minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed as sought by the Crown.

[14] I have considered the aggravating features and to me, the most serious were those identified by the Crown. The use of the weapon, a lethal weapon and the serious injury that was caused. This was a life-threatening injury and the resulting injuries are extremely significant and lifechanging for the victim. It is a tragedy that someone like you has become involved in offending like this because this has a ripple effect.

Not only does it effect the victim, all his family, his support networks, his life but it also effects yours also and your family.

[15] Bearing in mind those two serious aggravating features and the other three that are present to a lesser extent, the unprovoked extreme violence, the element of premeditation and the attack to the head, in my view:

• (a) A starting point of nine years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
  
• (b) With the guilty plea, there maybe have been some toing and froing as between counsel and COVID-19 but in my view, an earlier guilty plea could have been made and this is not at the earliest opportunity. I make an allowance of approximately 10 per cent for that.
  
• (c) As to the cultural matters, they are significant under the report that I have received, the s 27 report prepared by Dr Jared Gilby I think it was who prepared the report. It is extensive and I have read that. That certainly means that you did not grow up with the advantages that people can expect to grow up with, in fact far from it. I make an allowance of 20 per cent for that.
  
• (d) An allowance is sought for your youth, although you are getting to the end of the range of allowances for youth. You are now 24 and were 22 at the time of this offending. I make an allowance of 10 per cent for your youth.
  
• (e) That is a 40 per cent discount from the nine years. I have calculated that to be 43.2 months which I round up to 44 months which leaves an end sentence of 64 months or five years and four months.
  

[16] I now consider whether there should be a minimum period of imprisonment. The period which would otherwise apply would be that applicable under the Parole Act 2002. A minimum period of imprisonment is only appropriate if the normal parole period is insufficient for holding an offender accountable for harm done to the

victim and the community by the offending, denouncing the conduct in which the offender was involved and protecting the offender from the community. In my view, a minimum period of imprisonment is important, is rather insufficient for holding you accountable for harm done to the victim and the community by the offending.

[17] This was very serious offending, Mr Rapatini. It is conduct and behaviour that really should be marked with an appropriate sentence and in my view, the normal parole period would be insufficient to mark such serious offending. It also is important to protect the community from your offending. You do not seem to have any interest in leaving the gang at this stage and at present, your drug addiction is untreated.

[18] On that basis, I set a minimum parole period at 50 per cent which is two years and eight months. You can stand down, Mr Rapatini.

[19] On the charge:

• (a) You are sentenced to five years and four months’ imprisonment.
  
• (b) There will be a minimum imprisonment of 50 per cent which is two years and eight months.
  
• (c) I also direct that a copy of the s 27 report be given to the prison authorities. That will give them a wealth of information to help you and assist you with any rehabilitation courses and to address addiction and counselling issues.
  

Judge RG Marshall

District Court Judge | Kaiwhakawā o te Kōti ā-Rohe

Date of authentication | Rā motuhēhēnga: 11/05/2022