Karetu v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2012-412-000033 [2012] NZHC 2370

BETWEEN  BOYCEE LINTON JUNIOR KARETU Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         13 September 2012

Counsel:         A M Dawson for Appellant

R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:      14 September 2012

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 9.30am on the 14th day of September 2012.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]      On 3 April 2012 the appellant was sentenced to a total period of two years

and three months’ imprisonment in relation to the following offences:

(1)       Unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle contrary to s 226(1) of the

Crimes Act 1961;

(2)Refusing  an  officer’s  request  for  a  blood  specimen  contrary  to s 60(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998;

(3)       Careless driving causing injury contrary to s 38 of the Land Transport

Act 1998;

KARETU V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC DUN CRI-2012-412-000033 [14 September 2012]

(4)       Unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition contrary to s 45(1)

of the Arms Act 1983;

(5)       Receiving stolen property under $500 in value contrary to ss 246 and

247 of the Crimes Act 1961;  and

(6)Breaching release conditions on two occasions contrary to s 96(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The  appellant  appeals  against  this  total  sentence.     He  says  it  was  manifestly excessive.

[2]      In imposing the sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment the

District Court Judge:

(1)imposed a one year period of imprisonment for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, to which an additional three months’ imprisonment was imposed to take account of the appellant’s previous convictions.   A further one month period of imprisonment was imposed for the refusal to provide a blood specimen, and a further one month period of imprisonment was imposed for the careless driving causing injury.   This created an end starting point of one year five months’ imprisonment for the offences referred to in [1(1)-(3)] above;

(2)imposed a cumulative one year three months’ period of imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.  A one month concurrent period of imprisonment was imposed for receiving stolen property;  and

(3)       imposed  a  cumulative  six  months’  period  of  imprisonment  for

breaching release conditions.

[3]      This  resulted  in  an  end  starting  point  of  three  years  and  two  months’

imprisonment.  A reduction of 25 per cent was granted in response to the appellant’s

guilty  pleas.    This  resulted  in  the  end  sentence  of  two  years  three  months’

imprisonment.

The offending

[4]      On 14 January 2012, a Mazda motor vehicle was unlawfully taken from its owner in Porirua, and ended up in the possession of the appellant, who was found to be driving it on 27 January in Dunedin.   The appellant was driving at speed on Orr St, Dunedin when he lost control of the vehicle and hit a parked car on the side of the road before colliding with a concrete wall.  He then ran from the vehicle until the police apprehended  him.   The police noticed…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Karetu 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
[2012] NZHC 2370
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boycee Linton Junior Karetu appeals against his sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment for various offences. The appeal is based on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The District Court Judge imposed separate sentences for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, refusing to provide a blood specimen, careless driving causing injury, unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, receiving stolen property, and breaching release conditions. The court's task was to determine whether the cumulative sentences and individual sentence lengths were appropriate.

The court considered whether cumulative sentences were justified, given the separate nature of the offences. It was held that the offences were sufficiently discrete and not part of a continuing course of conduct. The court also examined the individual sentences, particularly those for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. It found that the starting point of one year five months for the vehicle-related offences was high, especially since the appellant was not responsible for taking the vehicle. The court also found the starting point of one year and three months for the possession of firearms charge to be high, particularly given the circumstances of the offence. The court concluded that a starting point of one year for the vehicle-related offences and 14 months for the possession of firearms was more appropriate. The six-month sentence for breaching release conditions was upheld.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment was reduced to two years’ imprisonment. The court adopted cumulative sentences of one year for the vehicle-related offences, 14 months for the possession of firearms, and six months for the breaches of release conditions. The remaining orders and sentences made by the District Court were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.