Latu v Police - [2017] NZHC 363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-00017

CRI-2017-404-00018 [2017] NZHC 363

BETWEEN
PULUNO MESUI LATU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 6 March 2017

Appearances:

P Pati for Appellant
K Li for Respondent

Judgment:

7 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Fogarty on
7 March 2017 at 3.45 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Manukau
Kayes, Fletcher, Walker, Crown Solicitors, Manukau

LATU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 363 [7 March 2017]

[1] Mr Latu was sentenced before Judge J Bergseng, in the Manukau District

Court on 21 December 2016, in relation to:

(a) Three charges of male assaults female;

(b) One charge of assault with intent to injure; (c) Two charges of injuring with intent to injure; (d) Two charges of threatening to kill/do GBH; (e) One charge of dangerous driving; and
(f) One charge of failing to stop.

[2] The end sentence imposed was three years and five months’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr Latu appeals on the ground that the end sentence was manifestly excessive for the following reasons:

(a) The Judge failed to appropriately take into account all the mitigating factors personal to Mr Latu;

(b) The least restrictive outcome in accordance with s 8(g) of the

Sentencing Act 2002 is a short term of imprisonment; and

(c) Home detention is an appropriate alternative sentence.

[4] The relevant facts are set out in paragraphs [4]–[10] of the judgment as follows:1

[4] The summary of facts describes what took place between you and your then partner. You had been in a relationship with your partner for about six years as at February of this year. Together you have a three year old daughter. You were both 21 at the time. Leading up to 17 February there had been a number of arguments between the two of you. It was your

1 R v Latu [2016] NZDC 16408.

concern, it seems, about a lack of trust in the relationship. On 17 February you and your partner argued over the telephone. Your partner told you that she did not want you to come home. A short time later she saw you arrive. She ran out the back and waited a short time before she went back inside. She found that you were lying on the bed. She asked you to leave, you refused. She walked out the front door. You jumped through a window, breaking it, to chase her. You started to swear at her, you ordered her back into the house, she sought help from a neighbour however none was forthcoming. She ended up back inside with you. She walked out onto the small deck out the back where she attempted to call the police. You followed her, you grabbed the phone off her, you punched her to the face and she fell to the ground. While she was on the ground you continued to punch her about 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 Latu v Police

Details

AGLC: Latu v Police [2017] NZHC 363
Case: [2017] NZHC 363
Decision Date: 7 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Puluno Mesui Latu appealed against his sentencing, which was handed down by Judge J Bergseng in the Manukau District Court. The appellant was sentenced to three years and five months’ imprisonment for a series of violent offences against his former partner, including male assaults on a female, assault with intent to injure, injuring with intent to injure, threatening to kill/do grievous bodily harm, dangerous driving, and failing to stop. Latu contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to appropriately consider all mitigating factors, and that home detention would have been a more suitable sentence.

The High Court considered the arguments presented by the appellant’s counsel, who submitted that the judge had failed to sufficiently account for the appellant's remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and prospects for reform. The appellant's counsel argued that a more appropriate sentence would have been around 24 months’ imprisonment, which would have allowed for home detention as an alternative. However, Justice Fogarty found that the appellant had not convinced the Court that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the judge had appropriately balanced the various factors.

Justice Fogarty concluded that the sentence imposed was a careful, thorough, and appropriate one, taking into account the extreme nature of the offending and the serious injuries inflicted on the victim. The Court found that the sentence correctly reflected the level of culpability, and that the appellant had made significant steps towards addressing his background issues. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against the sentence imposed by the Manukau District Court was dismissed. The sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment, along with the other penalties imposed, was confirmed as appropriate.

Orders