Hare-Huru v Police - [2023] NZHC 3456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-464

[2023] NZHC 3456

BETWEEN
ROGAN HARE-HURU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 27 November 2023

Appearances:

M S D Fernando for Appellant

R A van Boheemen for Respondent

Judgment:

30 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 November 2023 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel:
M S D Fernando, Barrister, Auckland
R A van Boheemen, Barrister, Auckland

HARE-HURU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3456 [30 November 2023]

[1] This is an appeal against a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge L Tremewan on the following charges in the District Court at Waitākere:1

(a)5 July 2021 offending: Receiving (over $1000)2 and dangerous driving.3

(b)22 March 2022 offending: Failing to remain stopped for an enforcement officer4 and driving while suspended (third or subsequent).5

(c)27 July 2022 offending: Unlawful possession of a firearm6 and unlawful possession of ammunition.7

(d)4 April 2023 offending: Unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.8

[2]Two arguments are advanced in support of the appeal:

(a)the Judge erred by not following the two-step methodology required in
Moses v R;9 and

(b)inadequate discounts were given.

Legal principles

[3] The Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.10 Generally, the sentence must be shown to be manifestly excessive or

1      New Zealand Police v Hare-Huru [2023] NZDC 19106.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 274(a): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1): maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine and a mandatory six months’ disqualification.
4      Sections 52A(1)(b) and 114: maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine.
5      Section 32(1)(c): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a $6,000 fine and a mandatory 12 months’ disqualification.
6      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1): maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.
7      Section 51: maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $4,000.
8      Crimes Act, s 226(1): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
9      Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.
10     Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

wrong in principle.11 The focus is on the end sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it is reached.12

[4] The claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive (or inadequate) is inevitably premised on the contention of prior error, which may include questions of whether the starting point was too high given the facts, or of incorrect discounts.13

[5] Appellate courts do not indulge in mere tinkering with a sentence.14 The Court generally will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.

Methodology

[6] In Moses v R, the Court of…

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 Hare-Huru v Police

Details

AGLC: Hare-Huru v Police [2023] NZHC 3456
Case: [2023] NZHC 3456
Decision Date: 30 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court considered an appeal by Rogan Hare-Huru against a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and that the sentencing methodology set out in Moses v R was not followed correctly. The appellant further claimed inadequate discounts were afforded for guilty pleas, hardship/deprivation, rehabilitation/remorse, mental health, and time spent on electronically monitored bail. The court examined whether the District Court had erred in its sentencing methodology or in applying the appropriate discounts. The Court held that the District Court had correctly applied the Moses methodology, and that the discounts afforded were appropriate. The High Court accepted that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders