Bunyan v Police - [2025] NZHC 936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2025-443-10

[2025] NZHC 936

BETWEEN
SONNY BOUDI BUNYAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 1 April 2025

Appearances:

D A Sutton for Appellant

P M Lange for Respondent

Judgment:

16 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] On 7 February 2025, Mr Bunyan was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment in the District Court.1 This followed an application by the Department of Corrections (Corrections) to cancel and replace his community work sentence for a charge of assault on a person in a family relationship.2 Mr Bunyan was also sentenced for breaching a sentence of community work.3

[2] Mr Bunyan appeals the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive because it was not the least restrictive sentence that was appropriate in the circumstances, and he was denied natural justice because counsel should have been assigned and instructed prior to sentencing.

1      Police v Bunyan [2025] NZDC 2235.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

BUNYAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 936 [16 April 2025]

[3] The Crown agrees that the sentence may be manifestly excessive, and a shorter sentence of imprisonment should be imposed on appeal but disagrees that there was a breach of natural justice given Mr Bunyan was represented by a duty lawyer at sentencing and is also represented on appeal.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I allow the appeal and remit the sentence to the District Court for resentencing with an updated pre-sentence report to be prepared.

The offending

[5] It is useful to briefly outline the original offending and matters that have progressed since then.

Original offending and sentence

[6] On 1 January 2023, Mr Bunyan and the complainant were sitting outside an address discussing family matters, and Mr Bunyan became angry at the complainant. When the complainant told Mr Bunyan this was not the place to talk about it, he got up out of his seat and walked to where the complainant was sitting. Mr Bunyan grabbed the complainant’s throat, pushed her into a chair, threw her onto the side of the house, at which point the complainant fell to the ground. Mr Bunyan stood over the complainant and pushed her face into the ground before she was able to get to her feet and run inside. Mr Bunyan followed the complainant inside and grabbed the complainant’s ponytail and began dragging her outside by her hair. The complainant managed to get free from Mr Bunyan’s grip and he ran from the house.

[7] On 26 June 2023 Mr Bunyan entered a guilty plea to the charge of assault on a person in a family relationship. On 11 September 2023 Mr Bunyan was sentenced in the District Court to nine months’ supervision and 150 hours of community work.

Breaches of sentence

[8] It appears from Mr Bunyan’s criminal and traffic…

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 Bunyan v Police

Details

AGLC: Bunyan v Police [2025] NZHC 936
Case: [2025] NZHC 936
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Sonny Boudi Bunyan against his sentence of four months’ imprisonment, imposed by the District Court following an application by the Department of Corrections to cancel and replace his community work sentence for assaulting a person in a family relationship, and for breaching a sentence of community work. Bunyan argued the sentence was manifestly excessive and denied natural justice because he was not assigned counsel prior to sentencing. The Crown conceded that the sentence may be excessive but denied a breach of natural justice, as Bunyan was represented by a duty lawyer at sentencing and on appeal.

The court found that while Bunyan had been represented by a duty lawyer at sentencing, the opportunity to instruct counsel sufficiently was lacking, resulting in a breach of natural justice. However, given the conclusion that the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court did not need to address this point in detail. Regarding the excessiveness of the sentence, the court noted that the Judge had limited sentencing options available and was not satisfied with Bunyan's explanation for not completing his community work prior to sentencing. The court concluded that the substituted sentence of three months and two weeks’ imprisonment for the assault charge was manifestly excessive, and the additional three weeks for the breach of community work reinforced this conclusion. The court allowed the appeal, remitting the case to the District Court for resentencing with an updated pre-sentence report, including consideration of electronically monitored sentences.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the sentence was remitted to the District Court for resentencing, and an updated pre-sentence report was to be prepared, including canvassing the availability of electronically monitored sentences, to be available to the court before sentencing Bunyan.

Orders