Andrew Apineru v The Queen , , Maele Maele , the Queen , , Leti Maele and the Queen

The applicants, Andrew Apineru, Maele Maele, and Leti Maele, sought leave to appeal against their sentences following their convictions for multiple charges including recklessly causing serious injury and intentionally causing injury. The applicants, along with a co-offender, had assaulted four victims in a public place. The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether there was an unacceptable disparity between the sentences of the applicants.

The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offending, which involved a violent assault on four victims in a public place, causing significant injuries. The court considered the need for general deterrence and the principle of parity, which requires sentences to be proportionate and consistent within a cohort. The applicants argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive and that there was an unacceptable disparity between their sentences and those of their co-offender. However, the court found that the sentences were within the range of appropriate penalties for such offences, taking into account the aggravating factors of the public nature of the violence and the significant harm caused. The disparity, while noted, did not reach the threshold of being unacceptable when considering the individual circumstances and the principle of parity.

The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the disparity, while present, did not undermine the overall fairness of the sentencing process. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The applicants' sentences remained as determined by the trial judge, reflecting the gravity of their offending and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence.