A Supreme Court decision released this afternoon stated that Wharton was challenged to a fight but declined.
Later, Renata and his associates pressed for a fight.
Tutakangahau punched Wharton and others joined in, including Renata, before Wharton got away and ran towards the kitchen.
The group began barking and chasing after him. A third person caught him and punched him again, knocking him to the floor, the decision detailed.
Wharton was kicked before he was able to get up and reach the kitchen.
However, he was caught again by either Tutakangahau or Renata.
Whakatāne man Jamaine Wharton died after being stabbed at the Waiohau Rugby Clubrooms. Photo / Supplied
The two then continued to punch Wharton, knocking him to the ground and stomping on him.
People tried to intervene but were, themselves, assaulted.
During the attack, Wharton got up again and Tutakangahau yelled at Renata to “get him”, and they continued to chase him.
Renata caught up to Wharton, punched him and then stabbed him twice in the chest.
When Wharton fell to the ground, Renata stabbed him in the abdomen.
Wharton tried again to run but was caught and kicked and punched by another man and Tutakangahau.
Other partygoers were then able to break up the attack and took Wharton to hospital. But he died on the way.
The following year, Renata, then 18, was found guilty of murder by a jury, while Tutakangahau, then 28, was found guilty of manslaughter.
Challenging the life sentence
Renata was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of ten years, while Tutakangahau was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment.
Sentencing judge Justice Paul Davison found Renata’s sentence would not be manifestly unjust.
Kayleb Renata was a Mongrel Mob associate.
According to the Supreme Court decision, he said the offending involved a “senseless and savage beating” of an innocent man who was outnumbered, posed no threat and had done nothing to provoke the attack.
“It culminated with you stabbing him three times to the chest, inflicting the final blow while he lay vulnerable and utterly defenceless on the ground,” Justice Davison told Renata at sentencing.
“Your personal circumstances, including your youth, do not render a sentence of life imprisonment manifestly unjust. Such a sentence is appropriate to meet the principles and purposes of sentencing.”
The decision also pointed out Renata’s sentence was agreed to be appropriate by both the Crown and defence.
However, Renata, past the date for the time in which he could appeal, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge his sentence.
He argued that his age at the time of the offending and his personal circumstances meant that a life sentence was manifestly unjust.
But the Court of Appeal declined his application.
It found Renata’s level of culpability was high, even allowing for his age and personal circumstances.
The Court of Appeal was satisfied that a different sentencing outcome would have been unlikely under Dickey, a new case law governing the way young people should be sentenced for murder.
He then turned to the Supreme Court, making an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence.
Renata wanted to argue two points – the first concerning the courts’ approach to granting an extension of time to appeal, and the other regarding whether young people who commit murder should be sentenced to life imprisonment.
But the Supreme Court found the area of law which decided whether to allow late appeals was already settled.
It further ruled that the Court of Appeal had already considered Renata’s youth and the Dickey case, and found life imprisonment was still appropriate, so there was no miscarriage of justice or legal question to review.
“Nothing advanced by the applicant calls into question that assessment given the nature of the offending and the other matters referred to by the Court of Appeal,” the Supreme Court concluded.
“The various factors influencing Mr Renata (and so affecting his culpability) were taken into account. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal.”
His application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 and is currently an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.