Materoa punched the teen in the back of the head, twice in the face, and kicked him.
Armed with several knives, including a filleting knife he found in the house, Materoa continued the assault while demanding money and valuables.
Using the filleting knife, he “placed it around [the teen’s] neck and pointed the blade to his eye” while shouting the “I’ll eat you” threat.
Materoa then ordered the teen to collect .22 calibre rounds, a knife and other items from around the house and place them into a fishing box.
The teen was repeatedly punched and pushed as Materoa searched rooms looking for property he could take.
According to a recently released High Court decision, Materoa again pointed the knife at the teen’s eye and forced him into a closet.
When Materoa discovered the teen’s younger sister was also home, he forced her into the closet as well.
The siblings were threatened with further violence while he pointed a knife at them.
At one stage, Materoa took the girl into another bedroom and ordered her to search the house for anything valuable.
Shortly after this, the teen was forced to unplug a television and told to load it into Materoa’s vehicle.
Materoa continued to use a knife to threaten the teen while going through the house looking for property to steal, and warned that if their mother returned home while he was there, he would kill her.
Justice Melanie Harland quashed the original sentence on appeal. Photo / George Heard
The teen was then made to unplug his laptop and write its password on a piece of paper, which was put in an envelope.
The incident ended when police arrived at the address.
By then, Materoa was outside and threw the knives back into the house.
Officers found him shirtless and claiming to be one of the victims’ brothers.
He was described as unco-operative and threatened that he and other gang members would stab police and burn down the family’s home.
The teen suffered a bleeding nose, cuts and swelling to his face and a chipped tooth.
When later spoken to by police, Materoa said he could not remember what had happened because he had been extremely intoxicated.
The sentence and the appeal
He went on to plead guilty to two charges of attempted robbery, kidnapping and injuring with intent to injure.
At sentencing in the Invercargill District Court, the sentencing judge described the offending as “akin to a home invasion”.
The judge said it was not random or impulsive offending, involved a degree of premeditation and would have been terrifying for the young victims, particularly the girl.
A starting point of four years’ imprisonment was adopted before discounts were applied for Materoa’s guilty pleas and personal circumstances, resulting in an end sentence of 31 months’ imprisonment.
Last month, Materoa appealed to the High Court, arguing the sentence was too severe.
He claimed the four-year starting point was excessive and more credit should have been given for his personal mitigating circumstances, including his remorse, rehabilitation efforts and previously clean record.
Justice Melanie Harland rejected the argument that the starting point was too high.
She found the offending was more serious than several comparable kidnapping cases because it involved a home invasion, two young victims and attempted robbery charges.
However, Justice Harland found the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to Materoa’s personal circumstances.
She accepted Materoa had genuine remorse, good prospects of rehabilitation and only a limited criminal history consisting of two driving-related offences.
It also noted he had engaged in alcohol counselling and completed anger management, domestic violence awareness and mental health programmes after the offending.
The court was told Materoa’s excessive drinking followed the deaths of two close family members.
Justice Harland also considered the impact imprisonment would have on Materoa’s two young daughters, finding he remained committed to being involved in their lives.
She concluded Materoa should have received a 20% discount for personal mitigating factors rather than the 10% allowed by the sentencing judge.
Justice Harland allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence was “manifestly excessive”.
Materoa’s sentence of 31 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with one of 26 months.
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.
Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.