Ronaki-Wihapi v R - [2025] NZCA 298

Criminal law - Conviction appeal - Sentence appeal 

The conviction for manslaughter is quashed as is the sentence for manslaughter. The appeal against conviction for murder is dismissed. The appeal against refusal of permanent name suppression is dismissed. 

Rereamanu Ronaki-Wihapi was found guilty by jury of manslaughter and murder in respect of the death of the same victim. He was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years on the murder conviction, and three years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction, to be served concurrently. The Judge declined Mr Ronaki-Wihapi's application for permanent name suppression. Mr Ronaki-Wihapi appeals his murder conviction and the name suppression decision. 

Was there a charging error? Held: Yes. 
Mr Ronaki-Wihapi should either have faced a single charge particularised in a way that it was satisfied either by the first impact or the second impact, or two charges of murder in the alternative. The verdicts of manslaughter and murder cannot stand together. 

Did the charging error create a real risk the outcome of the trial was affected or resulted in an unfair trial? Held: No. 
As the jury found the victim was still alive at the time of the second impact, the manslaughter verdict on charge one cannot stand. If there had been no charging error there is no reasonable possibility a different verdict could have been reached, because the jury found the victim was still alive at the time of the second impact, the second impact was the actual cause of death, and Mr Ronaki-Wihapi had the requisite murderous intent at the time of the second impact. 

Was the murder verdict unreasonable given the pathology evidence? Held: No. 
It was reasonably open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was still alive at the time of the second impact. The jury was not required to answer that question to the level of scientific proof: proof beyond reasonable doubt is a legal and not a medical concept. 

Did the jury not having both pages of Dr Stables' evidence on the timing of the victim's death create a real risk the outcome of the trial was affected? Held: No. 
There is no reasonable possibility the jury would have come to a different verdict if they had the second page. The jury would have been well aware from the first page of evidence that Dr Stables had conceded he could not exclude the possibility that the victim was dead prior to the second impact. 

Are the grounds for permanent name suppression made out? Held: No. 
The extreme hardship threshold is not met. There is no presumption in favour of name suppression for young offenders outside the Youth Court. Youth is not a particularly relevant factor in this case given Mr Ronaki-Wihapi's demonstrated emotional maturity. Any effect on his future employment prospects and the label of murderer are consequences of conviction rather than publication. There is also a high public interest in identifying those convicted of murder which weighs against name suppression.