Kingi v Police - [2024] NZHC 143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2023-425-45

[2024] NZHC 143

BETWEEN
NGAPUAHI HURIWAKA TE PAEA KINGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 February 2024

Appearances:

J A Westgate for Appellant (via VMR) M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

12 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 February 2024 at 11 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

KINGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 143 [12 February 2024]

Introduction

[1] Ngapuahi Kingi pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary.1 On 6 September 2023 he was sentenced by Judge Harvey to two years and one month’s imprisonment.2

[2] Mr Kingi appeals his sentence on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the Judge failed to give a sufficient discount for the defendant’s methamphetamine addiction and failed to give any discount for background cultural factors.

The facts

[3]The defendants and the victim are all associated with Black Power.

[4] Mr Kingi and four others were at a property in Invercargill consuming alcohol. At approximately 7 pm they all travelled by car to the victim’s flat in Earn Street, Invercargill. The victim is known to the defendants.

[5] At the victim’s flat, there was a confrontation between the victim and the defendants. CCTV footage from a dashcam of a passing motorist shows the victim standing on the footpath with four of the defendants at the front of the victim’s property. The fifth defendant was standing near the vehicle. After passing the address, the motorist looked in his rear vision mirror and saw the victim on the ground being punched by one or more of the defendants. Two gun shots were then heard approximately five seconds apart. The shots were fired by the victim and one of the defendants was shot.

[6] During the confrontation, Mr Kingi was armed with a tomahawk with a knife attached to the handle.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Ngapuahi Kingi [2023] NZDC 19908.

[7] On 22 December 2022 Police executed a search warrant at the address of one of Mr Kingi’s co-defendants. Mr Kingi was at the address and police seized a tomahawk with the knife taped to one end, from him.

District Court decision

[8] On 12 July 2023 Judge Harvey provided a sentence indication on the charge, proposing a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. That indication was accepted and Mr Kingi was sentenced on 6 September 2023.3

[9] In sentencing Mr Kingi, Judge Harvey said he was pleased Mr Kingi had acknowledged his major methamphetamine problem in the pre-sentence report. Judge Harvey considered this meant there was a very good chance Mr Kingi would be able to address his addiction and observed he needed to do this for the benefit of Mr Kingi’s young son.

[10] To the indicated starting point of three years’ imprisonment,…

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 Kingi v Police

Details

AGLC: Kingi v Police [2024] NZHC 143
Case: [2024] NZHC 143
Decision Date: 12 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, heard an appeal against sentence from Ngapuahi Kingi, who was sentenced to two years and one month’s imprisonment for aggravated burglary. Kingi appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive due to the court’s failure to sufficiently consider his methamphetamine addiction and cultural background. The appeal hinged on whether the District Court judge had erred in not applying a more significant discount for Kingi's addiction and background factors.

The court considered the legal principles underpinning sentencing, particularly the need for individualised justice that takes into account the personal, family, and cultural circumstances of the offender. The court reviewed Kingi's methamphetamine use and the extent to which it influenced his offending. While Kingi's addiction was acknowledged, the court found that there was no direct link between his addiction and the commission of the crime. The court also examined Kingi’s cultural background, noting that while there were elements of family violence and exposure to alcohol, these factors did not significantly mitigate his culpability for the offence. The court concluded that the five per cent discount already applied by the District Court was appropriate, given the lack of a strong link between Kingi’s background and his offending.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The reasoning emphasized the importance of a clear connection between mitigating factors and the offence in determining the appropriate discount in sentencing. The court affirmed that voluntary substance use and background factors alone do not necessarily warrant a more lenient sentence unless they directly influenced the offence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence upheld.

Orders