Inamata v Police - [2014] NZHC 3099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-000362 [2014] NZHC 3099

WALLY INAMATA Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 December 2014

Appearances:

Annabel Ives for the Appellant
Tracey Hu for the Respondent

Judgment:

5 December 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by on 5 December 2014 at 11:00am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

INAMATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3099 [5 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] In March 2014 a jewellery shop in the Botany Town Centre was burgled. A large amount of jewellery including watches, rings, necklaces and bracelets were stolen. The retail value of the items stolen was $400,000.

[2] Two months later the Police executed a search warrant on the home of the appellant, Wally Inamata. In the course of their search they located a large quantity of high end jewellery items including 18 rings, a necklace, a watch and four bracelets.

[3] These items of jewellery were positively identified as coming from the burglary. The combined value of the items in Mr Inamata’s possession is estimated at $32,000.

[4] When spoken to by the Police Mr Inamata was not prepared to disclose where the items came from or how it was they came into his possession. He simply said:

Charge me if you want to me charge me. I’m going to plead guilty to all the jewellery. It’s me. You don’t need to involve my family. It’s all mine. I’ve got nothing to say.

[5] Mr Inamata was charged with a single count of receiving, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of seven years.1 At the time of this offending Mr Inamata was on bail having been charged with aggravated burglary.

District Court decision

[6] On 25 July 2014 Mr Inamata appeared in the District Court at Auckland for sentence. His Honour set a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment which he uplifted by six months to reflect Mr Inamata’s previous criminal history and the fact that the offending occurred while Mr Inamata was on bail. He then discounted the nominal sentence by six months in recognition of the early guilty plea and for
immediately taking responsibility for the offending.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247.

[7] This led to an end sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. That being a short term sentence of imprisonment his Honour expressly turned his mind to whether an electronically monitored sentence would be appropriate but discounted that course given the seriousness of the offending, Mr Inamata’s previous convictions and the fact that the present offending occurred whilst he was on bail.

Appeal against sentence

[8] Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 states that the Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that:

(a) for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction; and

(b) a different sentence should be imposed.

[9] In any other case, the Court must dismiss the appeal.2 This…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Inamata v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 3099
Decision Date: 5 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wally Inamata appealed against his sentence for receiving stolen goods, which was imposed by the Auckland District Court. The appellant was found in possession of $32,000 worth of high-end jewellery, which was stolen from a burglary. The District Court set a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment and uplifted it by six months due to the appellant's previous criminal history and the fact that the offending occurred while the appellant was on bail. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. The High Court was required to decide whether there was an error in the sentence imposed by the District Court.

The court held that the starting point of 18 months was within the sentencing discretion of the District Court. Although there is no tariff case for receiving, the court found that the starting point was appropriate given the value of the stolen goods. The court also held that the six-month uplift for the appellant's previous convictions and the fact that the present offending occurred while on bail was appropriate. The court dismissed the appeal, and the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court was upheld.

Orders