Inia v The King

[2023] NZHC 3333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-419-000074

[2023] NZHC 3333

BETWEEN

TOOTS TE POUNAMU INIA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

22 November 2023

Counsel:

A Bean for Appellant

PK Noorland for Respondent

Judgment:

22 November 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. A Bean, Hamilton.

INIA v R [2023] NZHC 3333 [22 November 2023]

The appeal

[1]                 Toots Inia appeals a sentence of 16 months and two weeks’ imprisonment on offences involving family violence. The sentence was made cumulative on a sentence for unrelated firearms offending, so that the effective sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.1

[2]                 The appeal must be allowed if the sentence is marred by error and a different sentence should be imposed.2

Background

[3]                 Mr Inia and the victim were in  a relationship  for approximately  one year. On 9 December 2021, Mr Inia and the victim had a disagreement. The victim left for a friend’s address. Mr Inia went to that address. He approached the victim in a friendly manner and placed his arm around her neck, in a gesture akin to hugging. Mr Inia then punched the victim to the top of her nose. She suffered a laceration.

[4]                 On 17 August 2022, the victim went to the Hamilton Police Station and made a statement to Police about Mr Inia. That statement included the assault just described.

[5]                 On 18 August 2022, the victim was in a car at a park. Mr Inia approached, uninvited. Mr Inia opened the car door and punched the victim twice to the face, then once to the side of the head.

[6]                 Mr Inia remonstrated with the victim that she had gone to Police and made a statement against him. He told her to  move into the passenger  seat.  She refused.  Mr Inia threw or pushed her into the passenger seat and got into the driver’s seat. He drove away with the victim in the car. Mr Inia became anxious he was being tracked by virtue of the victim’s phone. He removed it from the victim and destroyed it. He then threw the phone into a river.

1      R v Inia [2023] NZDC 17920.

2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

[7]                 On 6 December 2022, Police executed a warrant for Mr Inia’s arrest. This led them to discover a loaded .410 calibre shotgun that had been cut down, so it was a pistol. This is the firearms offence I mentioned earlier.

[8]Mr Inia pleaded guilty to the charges. I say more about this shortly.

[9]                 Judge Crayton adopted a starting point of 26 months’ imprisonment in relation to the family violence offences: two offences of assault with intent to injure. The Judge deducted 17.5 percent for Mr Inia’s guilty pleas, which came on the first day of trial. The Judge also deducted 15 percent in recognition of Mr Inia’s upbringing and remorse. The Judge made the 16-month and two-week term cumulative on a nine-month and two-week term for the firearms offence.3 As observed, this resulted in a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment.

Argument and analysis

[10]              On behalf of Mr Inia, Mrs Bean contends the starting point for the family violence offences was too severe, inadequate discount was given for mitigating features, and the Judge failed to afford sufficient discount for totality. For reasons that will be explained, I am not persuaded any  of  these  arguments  is  sustainable.  More importantly, I am not persuaded the sentence is manifestly excessive.

[11]              First, the Judge did not uplift the starting point for Mr Inia’s history of violence (he has three convictions for assault in 2018). Nor did the Judge uplift the starting point even though the August 2022 family violence offence was committed while  Mr Inia was on bail for other charges of assault with intent to injure, threatening to kill, and assault with a weapon.

[12]              Second, the guilty plea discount was particularly generous. Mr Inia did not plead guilty until the first day of trial. While it is correct there had been discussions between Mr Inia and the prosecution concerning the charges, the discussions were only that. Moreover, the proposed plea arrangement anticipated Mr Inia would also plead guilty to a kidnapping charge. He did not plead guilty to that charge and was

3      Mr Inia had accepted a sentence indication from another Judge in relation to that offence.

found not guilty of it at trial. So, Mr Inia received a substantial discount even though he pleaded guilty late.

[13]Third, the Judge did adjust for totality. He said:4

However, there will be a totality adjustment. The totality adjustment will be that the overall sentence will be brought back to 26 months or two years and two months. It will be adjusted in the following way. On the assault with intent to injure on the lead charge there will be a sentence of 16 months and two weeks. On the firearms offence there will be an overall sentence of nine months and two weeks. That will be cumulative.

No error attaches to this assessment.

[14]              The sentence is not manifestly excessive. Mr Inia committed two premeditated, separate assaults on his former partner. In each, he struck the head.  Mr Inia also unlawfully possessed a loaded pistol. The seriousness of this combination is self-evident. A sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment cannot be regarded as manifestly excessive.

[15]I thank Mrs Bean for her helpful submissions.

Result

[16]The appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..

Downs J

4      R v Inia, above n 1, at [19].