Hanara v The King

[2025] NZHC 3303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000447

[2025] NZHC 3303

BETWEEN

CAIN TE KAHURANGI HANARA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:	3 November 2025
Counsel:	RAA Weir and BC Hoffman for Appellant (via VMR) NC Pearce-Bernie for Respondent
Judgment:	3 November 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland. RAA Weir, Hamilton.

BC Hoffman, Auckland.

HANARA v R [2025] NZHC 3303 [3 November 2025]

[1]                  Cain Te Kahurangi Hanara pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving. Judge B A Gibson imposed a single month of imprisonment.1 The Judge did so in recognition of the fact Mr Hanara had been in custody for some time, so there would be no additional penalty in imposing that sentence.

[2]Mr Hanara appeals the sentence, however. He contends:2

Sentencing methodology

7.His Honour erred in his sentencing methodology in two respects –

a.He did not indicate how he decided upon imprisonment as the appropriate starting point. He formed the view that he could not convict and discharge Mr Hanara, but he did not indicate how he decided imprisonment as the appropriate alternative sentence. In this situation, this court can approach sentencing afresh.

b.He failed to consider the matters in s 16 of the Sentencing Act. These required him to be satisfied that imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence needed to hold Mr Hanara to account, deter and denounce the offending. The gravity of the offending was moderate, so if His Honour had considered these factors, the only conclusion would have been that imprisonment was not appropriate in the circumstances.

Failure to consider the reintegrative effect of the sentence

8.His Honour failed to consider the wider effect of imposing a sentence of imprisonment on Mr Hanara’s reintegration, specifically, his being unable to use the Clean Slate scheme as s 7(1)(b) of that Act prevents its use by anybody “ever” sentenced to a custodial sentence.

[3]I make three points.

[4]                 First, the offending was serious. On 25 December 2024, that is Christmas Day, Mr Hanara was outside the home of a relative in Mt Roskill. It was approximately

8.45 in the evening. Mr Hanara was sitting in his car. The police came for some reason. Mr Hanara sped away. Police pursued him. Mr Hanara drove (a) at speeds estimated to be up to 100 kilometres per hour in 50 kilometres per hour zones,

(b)  sometimes without headlights and (c) through red traffic lights.   He (d) failed to

1      R v Hanara [2025] NZDC 18488

2      Footnotes omitted.

take a corner, crashed through a fence onto the victim’s property, and then ran from the police. He was arrested a short time later.

[5]                 Two cases identified by Ms Pearce-Bernie support the sentence imposed by the Judge: Wicks v Police3 and Miru v Police.4 In each case, the sentence was ultimately six weeks’ imprisonment for dangerous driving.

[6]                 On behalf of Mr Hanara, Mr Hoffman argues these cases are much more serious. That said, he properly acknowledged Mr Hanara’s driving as “terrible”.

[7]                 I regard Wicks and Miru as a little more serious, but not greatly so, given the features of Mr Hanara’s offending: the speed, particularly in urban areas; driving without headlights on; going through more than one red light; and then crashing.  The combination speaks for itself in terms of offence-seriousness.

[8]                 Second, this being so, any concern or concerns about the Clean Slate Act 2004 essentially fall away. That is because the sentence was an appropriate one.

[9]                 Third, the submission on behalf of Mr Hanara does not really grapple with the proposition the Judge imposed the sentence to avoid imposing any additional penalty on Mr Hanara. Mr Hoffman argues, in response, that the Judge’s reasons were not adequate to the occasion, and the Judge failed to have adequate regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing.

[10]              I respectfully disagree. The Judge’s reasons are admittedly very short, but it is plain the Judge did what  he  did  to  impose  no  effective  additional  penalty  on  Mr Hanara. It follows that any criticism is, with respect, misplaced.

[11]              All this being so, there is no error in the sentence and no question of a different one arises.5

[12]I thank counsel for their helpful submissions.

3      Wicks v Police HC New Plymouth CRI-2008-443-0012, 24 April 2008.

4      Miru v Police HC Whangarei CRI-2011-488-0010, 11 April 2011.

5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

[13]The appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..

Downs J