2stage there was an attempt to make Davidson indulge ingroup were raped and one was sodomised as well Other grossgirls were threatened that they would be killed if theyfound guilty by the jury Hiha wa ID: 872448
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDQUE..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDQUE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDQUEENv.CHARLES JOHN HIHASomers J.Henry J.W.R. Flaus and Mrs Karen Clark for Crowna gathering earlier in the day and had been drinking went onto the beach at Napier late on a summer's night, evidentlylooking for trouble. They came upon a party of five youngyoung man named Davidson, for a light. This not beingproceeded to kick him into unconsciousness, the kicks beingin the attacking part
2 y urged Hiha on, and one of 2.stage ther
y urged Hiha on, and one of 2.stage there was an attempt to make Davidson indulge ingroup were raped and one was sodomised as well. Other grossgirls were threatened that they would be killed if theyfound guilty by the jury. Hiha was sentenced by the trial 3.aged 16 at the time of these crimes. It was argued thatin the High Court and he had not been dealt with under theChildren and Young Persons Act 1974, the High Court Jud
3 geshould have been guided by s.4 of that
geshould have been guided by s.4 of that Act and should havetreated the interests of the young person as the first andcriminal convictions and an inevitably unfavourablepre-sentence probation officer's report, including thiswere the complainants in these matters musthave felt after their experiences, the prisonerrepugnance amongst the community.offending on this occasion, with the additional help to begained from the repor
4 t and such submissions as counsel couldm
t and such submissions as counsel couldmake for the appellant, we are satisfied that his ten yearsentence was fully justified and is required for the1 4.prevailing sentencing levels. For instance, hisaggression makes his case somewhat worse than that ofrather older and that he was responsible for starting thewhole episode and for the first violence to one of the groupfurther four years to the basic term of ten deservedlybe
5 ing led by indignation to inflate punish
ing led by indignation to inflate punishmentssimilar lines, and a considerable list of previousadjustment in his sentence appropriate. His application forfor the injury toDavidson from four to two years. This is merely a 5.technicality to give effect to our conclusion that 12 yearsrepresents appropriately his overall criminality in thisCarlile McLean & Co., Napier, for appellant WainaCrown Law Office, Wellington, for Crown