Ifopo v The King - [2025] NZHC 2281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-265 CRI-2025-404-266

[2025] NZHC 2281

BETWEEN
MICHAEL IFOPO

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 11 August 2025

Appearances:

A Wei for Appellant

O Kazmierow for Respondent

Judgment:

12 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 12 August 2025 at 3.00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
A Wei, Barrister, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

IFOPO v R [2025] NZHC 2281 [12 August 2025]

[1] Mr Ifopo pleaded guilty in the District Court at Manukau to two charges of assault with intent to injure. The charges were laid under s 193 of the Crimes Act 1961 and each carried a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment.

[2] On 13 May 2025, Judge A M Wharepouri sentenced Mr Ifopo to twenty-one months imprisonment.1 Mr Ifopo appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge erred in several respects in constructing the sentence. He says that these errors have resulted in him receiving a sentence that is manifestly excessive.

The offending

[3] The charges were laid as a result of two separate incidents, the first of which occurred on 16 November 2024. On that date Mr Ifopo became involved in an argument with his partner, with whom he had been in a relationship for approximately two years. Mr Ifopo became angry and began punching his partner repeatedly before throwing her onto the ground. Whilst she was lying on the ground, he stomped on her head with considerable force. He then walked away briefly before turning back and, using a soccer-style kick, kicked his partner in the head whilst she was still lying on the ground.

[4] Mr Ifopo’s partner did not provide the Court with any information about the injuries she sustained during this incident. The victim impact statement that she provided appears to have been concerned primarily with the fact that the incident may result in her losing her accommodation.

[5] The second charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred in a supermarket on 26 December 2024. Mr Ifopo entered an area of the supermarket that was only accessible to staff members. He encountered a male staff member and placed him in a form of “bear hug”. The staff member asked Mr Ifopo to release him but he initially refused to do so. When he finally released the victim, he punched him to the left side of his face. Another customer then intervened, pulling Mr Ifopo away from the victim. He was then escorted out of the store.

1 R v Ifopo [2025] NZDC 10393.

[6] This incident left the victim with a cut lip and swollen face. He provided a victim impact statement in which he said that he now feels unsafe at work and worries that Mr Ifopo will return to the supermarket at which he works.

The sentence

[7] The Judge noted that the first…

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 Ifopo v The King

Details

AGLC: Ifopo v The King [2025] NZHC 2281
Case: [2025] NZHC 2281
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ifopo v The King concerns an appeal by Michael Ifopo against his sentence for two charges of assault with intent to injure, as laid under section 193 of the Crimes Act 1961. Ifopo was sentenced to twenty-one months imprisonment by Judge A M Wharepouri, a sentence he contends is manifestly excessive due to perceived errors in the Judge's construction of the sentence. The legal issues before the Court included whether the starting point of 18 months for the first charge was too high, whether the six-month uplift for the second charge was excessive, whether a greater discount should have been applied for Ifopo's guilty pleas, and whether the Judge should have considered the difficulties Ifopo will face in prison due to his limited English.

The Court considered each of these grounds of appeal. Firstly, the Court found that the starting point of 18 months for the first charge was appropriate given the serious nature of the assault, which involved repeated punches and violent kicks to a vulnerable victim. Secondly, the Court found that the six-month uplift for the second charge was reasonable, given the aggravating features of the offending, including Ifopo's entry into a restricted area of the supermarket and the forceful blow to the victim's head. Thirdly, the Court found that the five-month discount for Ifopo's guilty pleas was adequate, despite his delays in entering pleas due to changes in counsel and his limited English. Finally, the Court found that no further discount was required to reflect the difficulties Ifopo would face in prison, given that he had been living in New Zealand since 2017 and had worked various jobs.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of twenty-one months imprisonment was upheld. The Court found that the Judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in constructing the sentence, and that no errors had been made that warranted a reduction in sentence.

Orders