Legal Research
Cases
Karipa v The King

Karipa v The King

Case [2025] NZCA 274 25 June 2025

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Guilty Plea Discounts

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA22/2025
[2025] NZCA 274

BETWEEN	GEOFFREY NGAHAKU HOHEPA KARIPA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	14 May 2025 (further information received 20 May 2025)
Court:	Cooke, Venning and van Bohemen JJ
Counsel:	N P Bourke for Appellant J M Woodcock for Respondent
Judgment:	25 June 2025 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by van Bohemen J)

Mr Karipa appeals the sentence of six years and five months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge M A Crosbie in the District Court at New Plymouth on 19 August 2024,[1] after Mr Karipa had pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[2]
[1]R v Karipa [2024] NZDC 19745 [sentencing notes].
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum sentence 14 years’ imprisonment.
Mr Karipa contends his sentence is manifestly excessive because the Judge erred by not providing a sufficient discount for Mr Karipa’s guilty plea.
Mr Karipa filed his appeal on 17 January 2025, more than four months out of time, so seeks leave for an extension of time under s 231(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Relevant background

As directed to Mr Karipa, the following summary of the offending was contained in the Judge’s sentencing notes:[3]
[7]       … You and your ex-partner and a couple of your children were in Hāwera getting some takeaways. [Victim 1] and [victim 2] were in the vicinity. They had arrived to pick up, as I understand it from the Crown, pre‑ordered takeaways.
[8]       At that point something seemed to snap in you. Now I do not know whether it was because of something from the past or words that were said, but whatever happened you wanted to get across to them. Your ex-partner restrained you several times from leaving the takeaway shop and then from approaching the victims. I want to stress that because that is a little unusual. You were there with her and the kids. She obviously wanted to hold you back so this did not go any further, particularly I think because your kids were there. That is something that I am going to keep stressing today.
[9]       Then another man, who as I understand is yet to go to trial, became involved. He approached the victim as you grabbed victim 1. There was a physical altercation where it seems that all four of you were grabbing at each other. While the other man on your side of the argument was punching victim 2, you threw several punches using both hands at victim 1’s head and upper body. He then defended himself by kicking out at you. The other offender aimed a kick at victim 1’s head which connected and then you punched him in the right-hand side of his head using your right fist. The other offender then leaves.
[10]     While he was lying on the…

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 Karipa v The King

Details

AGLC: Karipa v The King [2025] NZCA 274
Case: [2025] NZCA 274
Decision Date: 25 June 2025 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, Geoffrey Ngahaku Hohepa Karipa challenges the sentence of six years and five months' imprisonment imposed by Judge M A Crosbie in the District Court at New Plymouth on 19 August 2024, after Karipa pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Karipa contends that his sentence is manifestly excessive because the Judge failed to provide a sufficient discount for his guilty plea. Given that Karipa filed his appeal more than four months out of time, he seeks leave for an extension of time under s 231(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

The Court considered the application for leave and the appeal itself. The Court observed that an appeal against sentence will be successful only if the appellant can point to an error that is material to the exercise of the lower court's sentencing discretion. The focus is on whether the end sentence is within the available range, rather than the process by which the sentence was reached. The Court noted that the approach to guilty plea discounts is discretionary and depends on an evaluative exercise in each individual case. The Court emphasised that the timing of the plea and the strength of the prosecution case are relevant considerations, but neither the Supreme Court nor this Court established a hierarchy among the considerations that may be relevant.

In Karipa's case, the Court found that the most relevant considerations were the timing of the plea and the strength of the prosecution case. The Court accepted that a discount of 20 per cent would have been within range, but the Judge's decision to make a lesser discount of only 17.5 per cent was open to him. The difference between the two discounts is two months, and the difference in Karipa's eligibility for parole is less than a month. Neither differential is significant. Importantly, in the context of Karipa's offending, the Court does not accept that the end sentence is manifestly excessive or has resulted in an injustice.

The Court saw no merit in Karipa's appeal and, therefore, no grounds for granting leave for an extension of time. The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.

Orders