Chase v The King - [2024] NZHC 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-000003

[2024] NZHC 494

BETWEEN
HAMIORA HAUTAPU CHASE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 5 March 2024

Appearances:

G Walsh for the Appellant J Lewis for the Crown

Judgment:

8 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 March 2024 at 2.30 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

G Walsh, Barrister, Hamilton
J Lewis, Pollett Legal Ltd, Crown Solicitor’s Office

CHASE v R [2024] NZHC 494 [8 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Hamiora Hautapu Chase appeals the sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge N D Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court on 22 January 2024.1 Mr Chase pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary.

[2] Mr Chase brings an appeal on the grounds that the sentence is manifestly excessive; specifically, that the sentencing Judge gave an inadequate allowance for the guilty plea in view of the timing of the plea and bearing in mind the principle of parity with co-offender(s).

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal and submits that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. It submits that a higher starting point was well within the available range and the cumulative discounts awarded to Mr Chase resulted in an appropriate end sentence.

Background facts of offending

[4] Details of the offending set out below are taken from the agreed summary of facts to which Mr Chase pleaded guilty.

[5]Mr Chase and his co-offenders are members of the Mongrel Mob. At about

3.30 pm on 4 December 2022 Mr Chase and his co-offenders arrived at an address in Hamilton. The occupants of the home did not know who they were, although the female at the address was aware of one of the co-offenders. Two of the co-offenders (albeit not Mr Chase) were wearing gang patches at the time.

[6] Initially, two of the co-offenders went to the door and had a somewhat amicable conversation with the female occupant, during which a debt was discussed. There were no funds owing, however one asked for more money for fuel. He asked if they could continue talking inside the address. The female said no. The conversation continued at the door. At that moment Mr Chase joined the co-offenders at the door. After briefly stopping, Mr Chase walked into the address uninvited, pushing past the two co-offenders and the female.

1 R v Hamiora Hautapu Chase [2024] NZDC 1246 [Sentencing Notes].

[7] Subsequently, a fourth co-offender also entered the address followed by the two co-offenders who had initially been at the front door. It is said that all four were acting in concert, searching the address and people present. There were three other people in the address, the female’s son, his partner, and a male visitor. They locked themselves in a bedroom. During this burglary the door of the bedroom where the three had taken refuge was kicked down and a search of that room occurred.

[8] Mr…

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 Chase v The King

Details

AGLC: Chase v The King [2024] NZHC 494
Case: [2024] NZHC 494
Decision Date: 8 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Hamiora Hautapu Chase appeals against the two-year and five-month sentence imposed by Judge N D Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court, contending that the sentence is manifestly excessive. Specifically, he argues that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the timing of his guilty plea, nor did he appropriately apply the principle of parity with co-offenders in granting the discount for his plea. The Crown opposes the appeal, asserting that the sentence was well within the range of what could be justified by accepted sentencing principles, and that the discounts applied to Mr Chase resulted in an appropriate end sentence.

The court's analysis hinges on two primary issues: whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the timing of the guilty plea, and the extent to which the principle of parity should apply to the guilty plea discount. The court examines the correspondence between defence and Crown counsel, which shows the level and timing of engagement on the plea, and finds that this was highly relevant and not before the sentencing judge. The strength of the Crown case is also relevant, but the amendment to the charge and an issue of identification rebut some of the Crown's arguments. While the court finds that a 20 per cent discount for the guilty plea was warranted, it is not convinced that the engagement on the appropriate charge was so early as to justify the maximum 25 per cent discount.

The court quashes the sentence imposed in the District Court and substitutes a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment, considering this proportionate given the circumstances. The court finds that the original sentence was materially incorrect due to the inadequate consideration of the timing of the guilty plea and the principle of parity, but does not regard the substituted sentence as an instance of the appellate court simply substituting its view for that of the original sentencing judge.

The final orders of the court reflect the substituted sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment, with the original sentence being quashed. The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant circumstances in sentencing, including the timing of a guilty plea and the principle of parity with co-offenders, while also acknowledging the limits of appellate intervention in sentencing matters.

Orders