Arahanga v Police - [2015] NZHC 488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-483-000008 [2015] NZHC 488

BETWEEN
JOSHUA ARAHANGA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Defendant

Hearing:
13 March 2015

(Heard at Wellington by AVL)

Appearances:

S Ross for appellant
N Refoy-Butler for respondent

Judgment:

16 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Joshua Arahanga, pleaded guilty to one charge of assault with intent to injure and was sentenced by Judge Sygrove on 23 February 2015 to
18 months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Arahanga now appeals that sentence as being

manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] Mr Arahanga was charged following an incident of domestic violence. The statement of facts to which he pleaded guilty records that Mr Arahanga and his victim, with whom he has been in an on and off relationship for the past three years and with whom he has an 11 month old son, were at home. It was day time, approximately 12.40 pm. Mr Arahanga’s victim was asleep in the bedroom.
Mr Arahanga had attempted to wake her up, and a heated argument had ensued.

1 Police v Arahanga [2015] NZDC 2620.

[3] Mr Arahanga’s victim stood up from the bed. Mr Arahanga then pushed her forcefully back onto the bed and placed his hands around her neck where he applied pressure. He stopped to pick up the child, who it appears was sleeping with his mother, and placed him in his cot. He then returned to the bedroom and started hitting his victim’s legs while verbally abusing her. It is recorded he punched her in the stomach to get her attention. Mr Arahanga’s victim rolled over on the bed, yelling at him to stop hitting her. He then slapped her on the back. A struggle ensued during which Mr Arahanga slapped his victim twice more. She was crying and pleading for him to stop. The baby then started crying and Mr Arahanga stopped assaulting his victim and left the address.

[4] Mr Arahanga’s victim suffered a bruised upper right arm, red marks and

grazes around her neck, scratch marks on her front and back.

[5] Mr Arahanga was convicted in June 2013 for four previous incidents of violence against his former partner (assaulting a person with a blunt instrument x 2; injuring with intent to injure and male assaults female).

The sentence decision

[6] Understandably, the Judge took a dim view of Mr Arahanga’s offending. Regrettably, he did not follow the orthodox, Taueki, sentencing methodology.2 That is, he did not first set a starting point sentence by reference to the criminality of Mr Arahanga’s offending, then identify any adjustment that might be required for aggravating or mitigating circumstances personal to Mr Arahanga and then, finally, give Mr Arahanga appropriate credit for his guilty plea. Rather, the Judge would appear to have set a starting point sentence not only by reference to Mr Arahanga’s offending but also by reference to his previous convictions. The Judge set that
starting point at two and a half years’ imprisonment. The Judge then…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Arahanga v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 488
Decision Date: 16 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Arahanga appealed against his sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, imposed after he pleaded guilty to assault with intent to injure. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The sentencing was conducted by Judge Sygrove who considered the previous convictions of the appellant and set a starting point sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment. The appellant’s offending was considered as well as the injuries sustained by his victim. The appellant received credit for his early guilty plea. The Court of Appeal emphasised the appropriateness of the Taueki methodology in sentencing, which provides for transparency and assists Judges in arriving at appropriate sentences.

The legal issue was whether the starting point sentence was appropriate. The Crown referred to previous cases which considered similar offences and determined that a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment was appropriate. The appellant’s offending was not as serious as those cases and a starting point of nine months’ imprisonment was appropriate. After applying a 25 per cent discount for the appellant’s guilty plea, an end sentence of seven months’ imprisonment was appropriate.

The High Court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal. The sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was quashed and substituted with a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment. There was no suggestion that home detention was appropriate and the release conditions imposed by the District Court were confirmed. The Court found that the starting point sentence was not appropriate and the appellant’s offending was not as serious as that which attracted starting points of 12 months in the previous cases. The Court determined that a starting point of nine months was appropriate and after applying a 25 per cent discount for the appellant’s guilty plea, an end sentence of seven months’ imprisonment was appropriate.

Orders