Ifopo v The King
[2025] NZHC 2281
•12 August 2025
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 charge involved offending in a family environment. It initially involved repeated punches to the victim. It then involved Mr Ifopo delivering two significant blows to the victim’s head whilst she was lying defenceless on the ground.2
[8] In fixing the starting point, the Judge referred to several sentencing authorities relied upon by counsel.3 Taking into account the aggravating features of the offending the Judge selected a starting point of 18 months imprisonment on the first charge.4
[9] The Judge noted that the aggravating features of the offending that comprised the second charge included the fact that Mr Ifopo had entered a restricted area of the supermarket and struck the victim a forceful blow to the head.5 At the time of the offending he was on bail on the earlier charge. Taking these factors into account, and applying totality principles, the Judge added an uplift of six months to reflect the second charge.6 This resulted in a sentence of two years imprisonment.
[10] Turning to mitigating factors, the Judge noted that Mr Ifopo’s guilty pleas were not entered until six months after his first appearance. By that stage he elected trial by jury and been through the case review process, at which point a trial date had been allocated. Taking these factors into account, the Judge applied a discount of five months, or approximately 20 per cent, to reflect the guilty pleas.7 The Judge declined to apply a further discount to reflect the hardship Mr Ifopo is likely to suffer by being required to serve a custodial sentence in New Zealand in circumstances where he speaks little English.8 Finally, the Judge applied an uplift of two months to reflect the
2 At [9].
3 Teka v New Zealand Police HC Auckland, CRI-2009-404-253, 7 September 2009;
Nelson-Wright v New Zealand Police [2015] NZHC 2302.
4 R v Ifopo, above n 1, at [11].
5 At [9].
6 At [14].
7 At [15].
8 At [17].
fact that Mr Ifopo has previous convictions for offending involving violence.9 This produced the end sentence of 21 months imprisonment.
The appeal
[11]On Mr Ifopo’s behalf, Mr Wei advances four grounds of appeal. They are:
(a)the starting point of 18 months on the first charge was excessive;
(b)the uplift of six months on the remaining charge was also excessive and failed to reflect totality principles;
(c)the Judge ought to have applied a discount of 25 per cent to reflect the guilty pleas; and
(d)the Judge erred in refusing to apply any discount to reflect the difficulties Mr Ifopo will encounter in serving a custodial sentence in New Zealand.
Was the starting point on the first charge too high?
[12] In developing this aspect of his argument Mr Wei re-analysed the approach taken in Teka v Police and Nelson-Wright v Police, two authorities to which the Judge had referred in fixing the starting point for the first charge.10 Mr Wei also referred me to Edmundson v Police, Leatherby v Police and Hurinui v Police.11 He contended these cases supported his argument that the starting point on the first charge should have been within the range of 11 to 14 months.
[13] In response, Ms Kazmierow for the respondent pointed to the differences between the factual circumstances of the present case and those relied upon by Mr Wei. In support of her submission that the starting point selected by the Judge was appropriate, Ms Kazmierow referred me to Gamble-Mackesy v Police and Toala v Police.12
9 At [18].
10 Above, n 3.
11 Edmondson v Police [2015] NZHC 3148; Leatherby v Police Palmerston North CRI-2008-454- 45, 11 September 2008 and Hurinui v R [2014[ NZCA 290.
12 Gamble-Mackesy v Police [2024] NZHC 2905 and Toala v Police [2024] NZHC 1532.
[14] I have considered the cases referred to me by both counsel. As always, other cases all differ factually from the present case in one way or another. They do no more than provide broad guidance as to the range within which the starting point is likely to lie.
[15] I note also that Mr Wei sought to draw an analogy with the principles referred to in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Nuku v R.13 This provides guidance on the starting point to be selected for the crimes of wounding and injuring with intent to injure. However, I consider Nuku provides little assistance in the present context because it relates to charges that have maximum sentences considerably greater than that available in the present case.
[16] Of its type, the assaults that Mr Ifopo committed on his partner were undoubtedly serious given that they occurred in a family context. The initial blows were of sufficient force to cause her to fall to the ground. Whilst she was lying on the ground in a vulnerable position he both stomped on and kicked her in the head with considerable force. The targeting of the head is an obvious aggravating factor, as is the fact that the victim was vulnerable.
[17] The Judge selected a starting point that was just one-half of the statutory maximum available for this offence. Taking the aggravating factors of the offending into account, and notwithstanding the absence of evidence of injury caused to the victim, I do not consider a starting point at that level falls outside the available range. This ground of appeal fails as a result.
Was the level of uplift for the second charge excessive?
[18] As the Judge noted, this offending had several aggravating features. First, it involved Mr Ifopo entering an area of the supermarket to which the public were not entitled to have access. Secondly, he confronted a person who was a complete stranger and placed him in a bear hug. Thirdly, when he released the victim he punched him in the face with considerable force, thereby causing him injury. He was fortunate that he was not charged with injuring this victim with intent to injure him. The offending
13 Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39.
has also had considerable consequences for the victim. Finally, the offending occurred whilst Mr Ifopo was on bail on the earlier charge.
[19] Taking those factors into account, I consider a starting point of at least 12 months imprisonment would have been appropriate for this charge on a stand- alone basis. An uplift of six months to reflect totality principles is well within the available range. This ground of appeal also fails.
Was the discount for guilty pleas adequate?
[20] The Judge gave a discount of five months to reflect Mr Ifopo’s guilty pleas for the following reasons:
[15] I go on now to consider downward adjustments to reflect the mitigating circumstances. Here your guilty plea to the lead charges is to be acknowledged. Mr Sun submits that there was a long list of lawyers who were previously assigned to you which led to these proceedings being protracted. The changing line-up prevented your guilty pleas from being entered earlier than when they were. Nonetheless, I note that your guilty plea came six months after your first appearance. It also followed your election of jury trial and after the Crown Case Review Hearing when a trial date was allocated. In all these circumstances I consider that a five-month discount is warranted.
[21] Mr Wei accepts that Mr Ifopo did not enter his guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity. However, he points out that Mr Ifopo has had numerous changes of counsel and he speaks limited English. This means that counsel must take considerable care to explain matters to him. Mr Wei contends that the Judge ought to have applied a full discount of 25 per cent to reflect these guilty pleas.
[22] I do not accept this submission. Notwithstanding the changes in counsel, the fact remains that Mr Ifopo entered pleas of not guilty and elected trial by jury. The case had also proceeded past case review hearing and a trial date had been allocated. It therefore cannot be said that the pleas were entered at an early stage of the process. I do not consider that a guilty plea discount of just over 20 per cent can be criticised having regard to that background.
Should the Judge have given Mr Ifopo a discount to reflect the difficulties he will face in prison?
[23]The Judge dealt with this issue as follows:
[17] Mr Sun has asked that I make adjustment to reflect the fact that you will experience hardship serving a custodial sentence having little English ability. However, I note that you came to New Zealand in 2017. Since that time, you have worked a number of jobs. You also have extended family in the country. In my view yours is not the type of case where courts make adjustment as sometimes happens when a defendant, normally from another part of the world, unfamiliar with the local culture, having to be incarcerated in New Zealand and separated from family who cannot easily visit and without any English at their disposal thus suffering hardship for these reasons. Accordingly, I make no adjustment for this feature.
[24] It is not uncommon for sentencing Judges to provide offenders with discount in circumstances where they are likely to find it more difficult to serve a sentence of imprisonment than would otherwise be the case. This most commonly occurs when offenders who reside overseas commit offences in New Zealand and are required to serve a significant sentence of imprisonment in this country.
[25] Mr Ifopo falls within a different category of offender. He has been living in New Zealand since 2017 and has held down jobs in this country. The reasons why he has not attained a good grasp of the English language are not known. It is also unclear why he appears to have distanced himself from those members of his family who reside in New Zealand.
[26] Despite his difficulties with the English language, Mr Ifopo must now have an appreciation of New Zealand culture, food and customs. For these reasons, I do not consider he is likely to feel the same sense of isolation as a person from another country who comes from a completely different culture. I therefore do not consider the Judge was required to apply a discount to reflect this factor.
Result
[27]The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Lang J
0
5
0