Huata v R - [2017] NZHC 2833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2017-416-19 [2017] NZHC 2833

BETWEEN
PARIS HUATA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 1 November 2017

Appearances:

N Wright for the Appellant
A Richards for the Respondent

Judgment:

17 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Mr Huata pleaded guilty to the following four charges: wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice,1 escaping custody,2 possession of an offensive weapon3 and intimidation.4 On 7 September 2017, Mr Huata was sentenced to five months’ home detention by Judge Cathcart.5

[2] Mr Huata appeals his sentence on the basis the Judge gave insufficient discount for time spent on electronically-monitored (EM) bail, which resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Crown opposes this appeal and submits the discount given
by the Judge, of five months for time spent on EM bail, was entirely within range of

1      Crimes Act 1961, 117(e). Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 120(1)(c). Maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 202A(4)(a). Maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a). Maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
5      R v Huata [2017] NZDC 23404.

HUATA v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 2833 [17 November 2017]

the Judge’s discretion. Further, the Crown argues the overall sentence placed on Mr

Huata was lenient in the circumstances and should not be disturbed on appeal.

[3] The key issue in this case was whether a discount of five months’ for 15 months’ spent on EM bail was in error at sentencing and whether that resulted in a sentence which was outside the available range.

Factual background

[4] On 2 March 2016, Mr Huata was driving a car in Raupunga with his brother in the vehicle. Constable Prentice stopped the vehicle as he had seen a trailer connected to it with no number plate and no lights. The vehicle also had a smashed windscreen with no registration or warrant of fitness sticker attached. Both men knew Constable Prentice.

[5] Mr Huata was uncooperative in Constable Prentice’s dealings with him and challenged the Constable to a fight. The Constable could smell a strong smell of cannabis coming from within the vehicle. He invoked his search powers and advised the two men he would search the vehicle. At this point, Mr Huata told the Constable he was not to search the vehicle and continued to threaten to fight him.

[6] The Constable began to search the vehicle and observed a white package in the centre console, which he suspected contained cannabis. He also saw a baseball bat down the side of the driver’s seat. The Constable placed Mr Huata under arrest for possession of an offensive weapon. Mr Huata tried to start the vehicle to leave the scene and told the Constable he would not be arrested. The Constable then requested back-up from Wairoa.

[7] Mr Huata grabbed the baseball bat, told the Constable he would not…

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 Huata v R

Details

AGLC: Huata v R [2017] NZHC 2833
Case: [2017] NZHC 2833
Decision Date: 17 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paris Huata appeals his sentence, arguing that the judge did not adequately discount the time he spent on electronically-monitored bail, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Crown opposes the appeal, submitting that the discount given by the Judge was within his discretion and that the overall sentence was lenient and should not be disturbed on appeal. The key issue before the court was whether the discount of five months for 15 months spent on electronically-monitored bail was in error and whether that resulted in a sentence which was outside the available range. The court found that the discount applied by the Judge was not in error and that it was within the range upheld by the Court of Appeal. The court also found that no exceptional circumstances existed in Mr Huata’s case that would require a greater discount to be given. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that Mr Huata’s sentence of five months’ home detention, with conditions, remain in place.

Orders