Arama-Heta v The King - [2025] NZHC 2890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-348

[2025] NZHC 2890

BETWEEN
TOMA ARAMA-HETA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 15 September 2025

Appearances:

S Thode and M I A Creamer for Appellant A Mateni for Respondent

Judgment:

2 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 October 2025 at 11 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
Thode Utting & Co, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

ARAMA-HETA v R [2025] NZHC 2890 [2 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the sentence of Judge B A Gibson on 24 June 2025.1 Mr Arama-Heta pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary2 (both residential properties) and possession of cannabis for sale.3 Each burglary charge carried a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, and the possession charge carried a maximum sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.

[2] The appellant was given an end sentence of 45 months’ imprisonment (equivalent to three years and nine months).4

[3]Mr Arama-Heta appeals his sentence on the basis that:

(a)the starting point adopted by Judge Gibson was too high;

(b)the Judge failed to give appropriate reductions for personal mitigating factors; and

(c)the end sentence was manifestly excessive and is not the least restrictive outcome available.

[4]The Crown opposes the appeal and contends that:

(a)the starting point for the lead charges of burglary was available, as was the overall adjusted starting point;

(b)the reductions for personal circumstances were appropriate, reflecting the principles and purposes of sentencing; and

(c)the end sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

1      R v Arama-Heta [2025] NZDC 14603 [judgment under appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 231(1)(a).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f).
4 Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [23].

Legal principles

[5] The Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.5 Generally, the sentence must be shown to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.6 The focus is on the end sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it is reached.7

[6] The claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive (or inadequate) is inevitably premised on the contention of prior error, which may include questions of whether the starting point was too high given the facts, or of incorrect discounts.8

[7] Appellate courts do not indulge in mere tinkering with a sentence.9 The Court generally will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.

Facts of offending

[8] The first of the two burglary charges relates to a property at Royal View Road, Te Atatū South. At approximately 12 pm on 24 June 2024, the defendant was driving with a passenger who was aged 17 years old. Mr Arama-Heta stopped the car on Royal View Road outside a residential address. He remained in the car…

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 Arama-Heta v The King

Details

AGLC: Arama-Heta v The King [2025] NZHC 2890
Case: [2025] NZHC 2890
Decision Date: 2 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toma Arama-Heta appeals his sentence for two counts of burglary and possession of cannabis for sale, imposed by the District Court, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinges on three grounds: the starting point for sentencing was too high, the reductions for personal mitigating factors were inadequate, and the end sentence was manifestly excessive and not the least restrictive outcome available. The Crown opposes the appeal, asserting that the starting point, reductions, and overall sentence were appropriate.

The Court found that the starting point for the burglary charges should have been 28 months' imprisonment, reflecting Mr Arama-Heta's role as a driver and lookout who was unaware of the violence committed by his co-offender. The Court accepted that Mr Arama-Heta's personal background, including childhood trauma and lack of prosocial support, warranted a 15% reduction. Additionally, the Court found that a 10% reduction was appropriate to reflect Mr Arama-Heta's remorse, engagement with restorative justice, and the impact of imprisonment on his two young children. The Court concluded that the end sentence of three years and nine months was manifestly excessive, and allowed the appeal, substituting a sentence of 23 months' imprisonment.

The Court quashed the original sentence and substituted a sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment.

Orders