Hemopo v Police - [2024] NZHC 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-607

[2024] NZHC 157

BETWEEN
TINA HEMOPO

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 February 2024

Appearances:

R M Keenan for Appellant O J Southern for Respondent

Judgment:

13 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 13 February 2024 at 2.30 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
R M Keenan, Auckland
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

HEMOPO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 157 [13 February 2024]

[1] Ms Hemopo pleaded guilty to numerous charges in the District Court. On 31 October 2023, Judge D P Robinson sentenced her to 25 months imprisonment.1 Ms Hemopo appeals against sentence. She says that a series of errors in the approach taken by the Judge resulted in her receiving an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The charges

[2] The charges to which Ms Hemopo entered guilty pleas related to offending that occurred between 18 June 2021 and 27 March 2023.

[3] On 18 June 2021, the police stopped Ms Hemopo whilst she was driving a motor vehicle. She initially gave false details, but the police ascertained her true identity and learned that she was disqualified from driving at that time. By this stage Ms Hemopo was in breach of prison release conditions ordered by the District Court because she had failed to report to a probation officer as her conditions required her to do.

[4] On the evening of 16 September 2021, Ms Hemopo entered a residential address through an unlocked front door. The elderly occupant of the address was asleep in one of the bedrooms, but Ms Hemopo encountered the occupant’s granddaughter in the kitchen. Ms Hemopo then walked through the address looking for items to steal. She uplifted a car key and subsequently drove away in the occupant’s Toyota motor vehicle. She also took items from the shed in which the vehicle was stored.

[5] On 22 September 2021, the police stopped Ms Hemopo whilst she was driving the stolen vehicle in Mangere. It was found to contain items stolen from the shed. Ms Hemopo told the police that an associate had loaned her the motor vehicle, but this explanation was obviously not a truthful account. Ms Hemopo was charged with burglary and driving whilst disqualified as a result of the incidents that occurred on this date.

1 New Zealand Police v Hemopo [2023] NZDC 24050.

[6] On 29 April 2022, Ms Hemopo was again found driving while disqualified. On this occasion, police conducted a vehicle stop on Ms Hemopo’s vehicle. As police approached the vehicle, Ms Hemopo drove away at speed and the police were required to use a helicopter to follow her. She was observed travelling at speeds of approximately 130 kilometres per hour in a built-up area where the posted speed limit was 50 kilometres per hour. She was ultimately found hiding in a shed after abandoning her vehicle.…

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 Hemopo v Police

Details

AGLC: Hemopo v Police [2024] NZHC 157
Case: [2024] NZHC 157
Decision Date: 13 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tina Hemopo appealed against a 25-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge D P Robinson in the District Court. The sentence was for various charges, including burglary, multiple instances of driving while disqualified, and dangerous driving. Hemopo argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to alleged errors in the sentencing process. The High Court was required to determine whether the District Court's approach to sentencing was flawed and whether the end sentence was excessive.

In assessing the appeal, the court considered whether the starting point for the burglary charge was appropriately set, whether the uplift for the fact that most of the offending occurred while Hemopo was on bail was justified, and whether the discount for mitigating factors identified in a cultural report was appropriately applied. The court noted that while there were differing opinions on some aspects of the sentencing, the cumulative effect of the various components did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence. The court concluded that the end sentence of 25 months was appropriate given the nature and extent of Hemopo's offending over a significant period.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The High Court found that while there were arguments for adjustments to some components of the sentence, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders