Adams v The King - [2025] NZHC 500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-441-38/

CRI-2025-441-01 [2025] NZHC 500

BETWEEN
MANE HAPETA ADAMS and MANE PAHI

Appellants

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 March 2025

Counsel:

M J Phelps for Appellant Adams S Jefferson for Appellant Pahi

C R Walker for Respondent

Judgment:

13 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Sentence appeals]

Introduction and summary

[1] On 5 February 2023, Mane Adams and Mane Pahi chased a rival gang member along Napier streets after he had threatened Mr Adams’ grandson. Their car hit the victim’s car, with the result that the victim lost control, crashed and was seriously injured. Mr Adams and Mr Pahi were sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard.1

[2] The only issue in the appeals is whether the sentence of imprisonment should have been commuted to home detention. The appellants submit the Judge erred by imposing a custodial sentence. The respondent says no error was made.

1 Police v Adams and Pahi [2024] NZDC 30021. The charge, under the Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2), has a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

ADAMS v R [2025] NZHC 500 [13 March 2025]

[3] The very experienced District Court Judge was faced with a difficult sentencing decision where there were good reasons both for and against the imposition of a custodial sentence. Although another Judge might have reached a different outcome, I am unable to find any error in the Judge’s decision. As I will discuss, the Judge considered the countervailing factors but gave precedence to denunciation and deterrence to respond to a public display of gang-related behaviour that was a risk to the public and caused serious injury to the victim.

The offending

[4] Mr Adams is the president of the Hawke’s Bay chapter of the Black Power gang and his nephew, Mr Pahi is a patched member. In the early evening of 5 February 2023, Mr Adams, Mr Pahi and other Black Power members were socialising at a bar in Taradale when Mr Adams’ grandson ran into the bar. The grandson told Mr Adams about what the summary of facts describes as “an abusive exchange” he had with the victim, a Mongrel Mob associate, who had driven past him.

[5] While Mr Adams’ grandson was at the front of the bar talking to Mr Adams, he saw the victim’s car driving north on Gloucester Street and pointed it out. Mr Adams quickly collected Mr Pahi and they rushed out to the car park to Mr Adams’ ute. Mr Adams picked up a baseball bat from the tray and got into the front passenger seat. Mr Pahi then drove them around Taradale in search of the victim’s car. They saw it at an intersection and turned right through a red light to chase it, quickly catching up, with Mr Adams leaning out of the passenger window holding up the baseball bat to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v The King

Details

AGLC: Adams v The King [2025] NZHC 500
Case: [2025] NZHC 500
Decision Date: 13 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mane Hapeta Adams and Mane Pahi appealed against their sentences of 21 months' imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard. The case originated from an incident where the appellants, members of the Black Power gang, chased and collided with a vehicle driven by a member of the Mongrel Mob, causing serious injuries to the driver. The primary issue on appeal was whether the District Court Judge erred in imposing a custodial sentence instead of home detention. The appellants argued that the Judge did not adequately consider the advantages of home detention, while the respondent contended that the Judge appropriately balanced the sentencing purposes and chose imprisonment due to the nature and circumstances of the offending.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles under the Sentencing Act, noting that the choice between home detention and imprisonment is a matter of fettered discretion. The court examined whether the District Court Judge had made a reasoned and principled decision. The Judge had considered the appellants' backgrounds, their contributions to the community, and the circumstances of the offending, but ultimately concluded that the public display of gang-related behaviour, the risk posed to the public, and the serious harm caused required a custodial sentence to achieve the purposes of denunciation and deterrence. The High Court found no error in the Judge's approach, as she had carefully weighed the factors for and against home detention and reasonably determined that imprisonment was necessary.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the District Court's sentencing decision. The appellants were to serve 21 months' imprisonment, with additional conditions including disqualification from driving for 12 months.

Orders