Harding-Reriti v Police - [2021] NZHC 1296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-000050

[2021] NZHC 1296

BETWEEN
JAY HARDING-RERITI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2021

Appearances:

A Bailey for Appellant

C E Martyn for Respondent

Judgment:

3 June 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch Counsel: A Bailey, Christchurch

HARDING-RERITI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1296 [3 June 2021]

[1] On 12 November 2019 Judge A A Couch sentenced Mr Harding-Reriti to 12 months’ imprisonment on charges of possession of explosives and possession of offensive weapons.1 The Judge concluded his sentencing remarks as follows:
[5] … That leaves an end sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment which is what I impose on each of these charges concurrently.

[6]Leave to apply for substitution of sentence is denied.

[7] There will be standard release conditions by operation of the Sentencing Act 2002, but I impose no special conditions.

[2] Mr Harding-Reriti has served his sentence of imprisonment. However in the course of disclosure recently provided to him in relation to fresh charges he has learnt that his criminal history records that he was sentenced to standard release conditions. He seeks to appeal his sentence to correct that record.

[3] The first issue is that the appeal is out of time. Leave is required. However, as noted, the issue only recently came to Mr Harding-Reriti’s attention. Leave is granted.

[4] Mr Harding-Reriti’s counsel, Mr Bailey, has engaged in correspondence with the Executive Judge at the Christchurch District Court regarding the record. It appears clear enough from that exchange that the sentencing Judge did not impose standard conditions when sentencing Mr Harding-Reriti. That appears to have been on the mistaken basis that standard conditions would be imposed under the Parole Act 2002. While that may have been the Judge’s intention, it was in error. Section 93(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 applies:

93 Imposition of conditions on release of offender sentenced to imprisonment for short term

(1)A court that sentences an offender to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or less may impose the standard conditions and any special conditions on the offender and, if it does so, must specify when the conditions expire.

1 New Zealand Police v Harding-Reriti [2019] NZDC 22788.

[5] While the Judge could have imposed standard release conditions, he did not do so. Standard release conditions did not apply by operation of the Sentencing Act 2002 as the sentence of imprisonment was for 12 months.

[6] In R v Dodd this Court accepted that in R v Scott the Court of Appeal appeared to accept there was jurisdiction to vary a sentence provided the sentence was set aside and reimposed in open Court.2 It would have been open for the Judge to have re- sentenced Mr Harding-Reriti before his sentence was completed, but the point is moot in the present circumstances given that he has completed his sentence without being re-sentenced.

[7] The Crown…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harding-Reriti v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZHC 1296
Decision Date: 3 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, heard the case of Harding-Reriti v Police, where Jay Harding-Reriti sought to correct a record error regarding the imposition of standard release conditions during his sentencing. The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal was permissible despite being out of time, and if so, how best to correct the record that indicated the imposition of standard release conditions. The key issue was whether the court could allow the appeal and reimpose the sentence to rectify the record without the standard conditions of release.

Venning J addressed the legal issues by first noting that while the appeal was out of time, it was granted as the issue had only recently come to Mr Harding-Reriti's attention. The court clarified that the sentencing Judge did not impose standard release conditions, and such conditions could not be imposed by operation of the Sentencing Act 2002 as the sentence was for 12 months. The Judge acknowledged that the Crown accepted it was a matter for the Court to decide whether the removal of the conditions was appropriate. The court concluded that the most effective way to correct the record was to formally allow the appeal and reimpose the sentence without the standard conditions of release.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentence imposed by the District Court. The court confirmed and reimposed the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for the charges of possession of an offensive weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm concurrently, but expressly without any standard or special conditions of release. This decision ensures that the criminal history record accurately reflects the correct legal position.

Orders