Haapu v The Queen - [2014] NZHC 1273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2014-441-000021 [2014] NZHC 1273

BETWEEN
MATENE HAAPU

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 4 June 2014

Counsel:

R B Philip for Appellant
R Guthrie for Respondent

Judgment:

6 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 June 2014 at 3:30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Bate Hallett Lawyers, Hastings
Elvidge & Partners, Crown Solicitor, Napier

HAAPU v THE QUEEN [2014] NZHC 1273 [6 June 2014]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Matene Haapu, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Napier to two representative counts of receiving. He was sentenced by Judge A J Adeane to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of two years. The sole issue on appeal is whether the Judge was wrong to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

[2] An appeal against sentence is an appeal against the exercise of a discretion. Under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the appeal must be allowed if an appeal court is satisfied that there was an error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should be imposed. If so, the court may set aside the sentence and impose another sentence, vary the sentence, or remit the sentence to the court that imposed it.

The offending

[3] Between 1 January 2011 and 27 May 2013, Mr Haapu acted as a receiver of stolen property for various burglars. Text message data obtained by the police revealed that the offending was well organised and premeditated. Mr Haapu would receive text messages from a number of different associates, detailing the stolen goods that they had available for purchase. On some occasions Mr Haapu would text associates to place “orders” for goods he was specifically looking for.

[4] The stolen property consisted of a diverse range of items, including clothing, cigarettes, computers, quad bikes, tools, hunting gear, trailers, chainsaws and landscaping equipment. The police estimate that the value of the stolen property Mr Haapu either conspired to receive, or actually received, was $177,696.31.

[5] In addition, Mr Haapu had a side business “re-birthing” stolen Toyota Hilux vehicles. He would buy wrecked or damaged Hilux vehicles off the internet and then use those vehicles’ identification details for stolen vehicles, in order to pass them off as legitimate. The Crown identified at least four vehicles Mr Haapu has “re-birthed” in this way.

The sentencing

[6] Mr Haapu was charged with two representative counts of receiving, one of which was a count of conspiring to receive.1 The agreed summary of facts recorded his involvement in extensive receiving activities during the relevant period, as outlined at [3] to [5] above.

[7] The Judge noted that Mr Haapu is now 31 and has a 15 year history of dishonesty, although there is little record of recent offending. The Judge considered that this was probably due to Mr Haapu settling down in terms of his lifestyle, but noted that…

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 Haapu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Haapu v The Queen [2014] NZHC 1273
Case: [2014] NZHC 1273
Decision Date: 6 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matene Haapu appealed against his sentence for two counts of receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of two years. The sole issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a minimum period of imprisonment. The appeal against sentence is an appeal against the exercise of a discretion and under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the appeal must be allowed if an appeal court is satisfied that there was an error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should be imposed. The sentencing judge imposed a minimum period of imprisonment based on the pressing need in the Hawkes Bay/Gisborne community to suppress the commercial occurrence of burglary and the likelihood that Mr Haapu would reoffend. The judge had earlier observed in his sentencing notes that the Hawkes Bay/Gisborne area had the highest rate of burglary per head of population in New Zealand. The judge also considered that Mr Haapu had seven sets of prior dishonesty convictions and that there was a likelihood that he would reoffend. Mr Haapu submitted that the judge’s decision to impose a minimum period of imprisonment was unduly influenced by his concern with the burglary statistics in the Hawke’s Bay. This prevented the judge from correctly weighing that concern against other factors, such as Mr Haapu’s guilty plea, his personal circumstances, his remorse, his lack of convictions since 2003 (during which time he has settled down and started a family) and the fact that the current offending was not outside the range for offending of its kind. It was submitted that if the judge had taken these factors into account he would not have imposed a minimum period of imprisonment. The judge’s focus should have been on denouncing the conduct of Mr Haapu for the actual offences he committed, rather than punishing him for the criminal activity of others in the region. The appeal was allowed and the minimum period of imprisonment of two years was quashed. Katz J concluded that undue emphasis appeared to have been placed on the locality of the offending. Taking into account Mr Haapu’s guilty plea, his apparent remorse, the lack of any dishonesty offending since 2003, and the changes in Mr Haapu’s life since then, the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment was not, in Katz J’s view, warranted.

Orders