Anguna v R - [2020] NZCA 127

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA288/2019
[2020] NZCA 127

BETWEEN	ANDREW RANGI ANGUNA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	2 March 2020
Court:	French, Dobson and Moore JJ
Counsel:	G A Walsh and M J James for Appellant F R J Sinclair for Respondent
Judgment:	30 April 2020 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to bring the appeal is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Moore J)

Introduction

Following a jury trial in the District Court at Hamilton, Mr Anguna was found guilty of 10 charges arising out of domestic violence offending committed in December 2017.[1] He pleaded guilty to an additional six charges which related to events that took place six days later.[2]
[1]Three charges of breach of protection order (Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19(2)(a) and 49(1)(a)), burglary (Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a)), kidnapping (s 209(b)), male assaults female (s 194(b)); two charges of threatening to cause grievous bodily harm (s 306(1)(a)), indecent act with intent to insult or offend (s 126); attempting to pervert the course of justice (s 117(e)).
[2]Driving while disqualified third and subsequent (Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a)), possession of an offensive weapon, namely a knife (Crimes Act, s 202A(4)(a)); unlawful possession of a firearm (Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)), unlawful possession of ammunition (s 45(1)), breach of protection order (Domestic Violence Act, ss 21(1)(a) and 49(1)(a)); possession of a class B controlled drug, namely MDMA (Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a)).
On 10 April 2019 the presiding Judge, Judge R G Marshall, sentenced Mr Anguna to six years and three months’ imprisonment.[3] He appeals that sentence on the grounds it is manifestly excessive. In particular, he says the sentences should not have been applied cumulatively.
An appeal against conviction was also filed but subsequently abandoned.
The notice of appeal was filed some 26 working days out of time. The delay is relatively short and explained on the basis that Mr Anguna had to engage a new lawyer for the purposes of his appeal. The Crown did not oppose granting an extension of time. Accordingly, we grant the extension.

The facts

The victim was Mr Anguna’s former partner of six years, Ms S. They separated more than a year before the offending. They have a daughter together. A final protection order in Ms S’s favour was granted in May 2017. Ms S lived in Hamilton with their daughter. Mr Anguna lived in Auckland.
[3]R v Anguna [2019] NZDC 6855.

5 to 6 December 2017 offending (the first incident)

On 5 December 2017 Ms S was at home when she saw Mr Anguna drive past. Fearing for her safety, she left home and parked her car outside a police station. She remained away from her home before returning about five hours later. This was because she knew Mr Anguna had an 8:00 pm curfew and assumed he would have…

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 Anguna v R

Details

AGLC: Anguna v R [2020] NZCA 127
Case: [2020] NZCA 127
Decision Date: 30 April 2020 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by Andrew Rangi Anguna against his six-year-and-three-month sentence for multiple charges of domestic violence, including kidnapping, assault, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Anguna argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive and should not have been applied cumulatively. The appeal was filed 26 working days out of time, but the Court granted an extension as Anguna had to engage a new lawyer for the purposes of his appeal.

The Court held that it was open to the sentencing Judge to impose cumulative sentences for the offences, despite some temporal and contextual connection between the incidents. The Court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive when viewed in its totality, particularly considering the serious aggravating factors involved in the second incident, such as the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the District Court.

The final orders were that the application for an extension of time to bring the appeal was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders