Iongi v Police - [2025] NZHC 2329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-98

CRI-2025-409-99 [2025] NZHC 2329

BETWEEN
JOSHUA HEAMONI IONGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 August 2025

Appearances:

C C Gullidge for Appellant K N Stitely for Respondent

Judgment:

18 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 August 2025 at 9.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

IONGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2329 [18 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Joshua Heamoni Iongi (age 26) appeals a sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Couch on 27 March 2025 for the following charges:1

(a)assault on person in family relationship (x 5);2

(b)breaching protection order (x 3);3

(c)wilful damage;4 and

(d)driving while prohibited.5

Facts

[2] Mr Iongi was served a temporary protection order on 9 January 2024. The victim of the family violence offending was the protected person under that order.6

[3] On 27 April 2024, Mr Iongi was at the victim’s Christchurch home address helping her move in. An argument ensued. Mr Iongi grabbed the victim’s phone (valued new at $969) and broke it. In response to Mr Iongi’s violence escalating, the victim gathered her two children and left the property.

[4] The next day, the victim returned to her home with her children and began unpacking. Mr Iongi approached the victim, pushed her to the ground and struck her twice, including a slap with moderate force. The victim sustained tenderness to the right side of her face, and to her scalp where her hair was pulled. Mr Iongi admitted to slapping the victim’s face and pushing her to the ground. These events gave rise to charges of wilful damage, assault on person in a family relationship, and contravening a protection order.

1      Police v Iongi [2025] NZDC 7646.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A—maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a), 9 and 112(1)(a)—maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or
$2,000 fine.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52(1)(c)—maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
6      Based on the subsequent charges, the order has presumably become permanent.

[5] On the evening of Thursday 21 November 2024, Mr Iongi and the victim were at their address when an argument began about the couple’s finances. Mr Iongi and the victim left in the victim’s vehicle so she could pay her rent using free public wifi. Mr Iongi used the victim’s last remaining funds in her account to purchase a packet of cigarettes. The argument escalated. The couple returned home and parked outside their address. Mr Iongi punched the victim at least three times in the side of the head causing the victim to cry.

[6] Mr Iongi, while smoking a cigarette, demanded the victim apologise to him for something he felt she had done wrong. He leant over and placed the burning end of…

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 Iongi v Police

Details

AGLC: Iongi v Police [2025] NZHC 2329
Case: [2025] NZHC 2329
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Heamoni Iongi appeals the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by Judge Couch on 27 March 2025 for multiple charges, including assault on a person in a family relationship, breaching a protection order, wilful damage, and driving while prohibited. Iongi was served a temporary protection order on 9 January 2024, which was later presumably made permanent. Despite this order, Iongi engaged in repeated violent acts against the protected person, leading to multiple charges. The District Court Judge considered the most serious offences to be those occurring on 21/22 November, which involved prolonged violence, controlling behaviour, and breaches of trust. The Judge set a starting point of 32 months, adjusted for totality to 28 months, and applied uplifts and deductions resulting in a sentence of just under 24 months. Iongi's grounds of appeal include the proportionality of the uplift for prior convictions, the refusal to allow a deduction for the impact of parental incarceration on his infant child, and the refusal to allow a deduction for personal background factors.

The Court considered the psychological report and an email from Corrections staff as fresh evidence. The report, though tentative in its conclusions, was admitted as it could explain Iongi's inability to manage conflict in relationships. The Court found the uplift for prior convictions was justified due to the recent nature of the prior offence and the need to deter Iongi from similar future conduct. Regarding parental incarceration, the Court held that the absence of remorse and the seriousness of the offences outweighed the potential benefits of a deduction. The Court also found that the Judge did not err in declining a deduction for personal background factors, as the link between Iongi's background and his offending was not clearly established. The Court noted an arithmetical error in the District Court's sentencing methodology, but concluded that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders