Maaka v The Queen - [2014] NZHC 2035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-134 [2014] NZHC 2035

BETWEEN
FALCO BROUQ CELLAH MAAKA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 18 August 2014

Counsel:

E Davis for Appellant
S Elliott for Respondent

Judgment:

26 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 August 2014 at 4:00 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Vallant Hooker & Partners, Auckland

MAAKA v THE QUEEN [2014] NZHC 2035 [26 August 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Maaka appeals against his sentence of one year and 10 months’ imprisonment in relation to eight charges arising out of three separate incidents. The first two incidents involved violent and aggressive behaviour towards the police. The third incident involved violence towards Mr Maaka’s partner. Mr Maaka says that the end sentence imposed on him was manifestly excessive and failed to
adequately reflect the totality of his offending.1

District Court Decision

[2] The District Court Judge considered that the aggravating features were Mr Maaka’s criminal history (including offences of violence) and that the offending occurred while Mr Maaka was on bail and also on release conditions following a period of imprisonment. A 25 per cent discount was, however, given for Mr Maaka’s guilty pleas.

[3] The Judge took the lead offence as the assault with a weapon (chips canister)

and summarised her approach as follows:

[14] So the offences will be sentenced in this way, with a starting point of two years and six months overall made up of on the more serious offence a starting point of 18 months, that is the assault with the weapon. I am going to uplift that with another six months for the assaults on a female on the same day but separate occasions, so six months for each of those. The police assault matters occurred at an earlier time and although the overall starting point is two years and six months, those sentences in relation to the police matters will be cumulative or added on, so ultimately Mr Maaka I am going to give you credit then from that starting point of two years and six months for your guilty pleas.

[15] So final sentence is, and I am going to impose this on the most serious
matter, is one year and 10 months’ imprisonment.

[4] I note that although the Judge stated at [14] that the sentences in relation to the police incidents would be cumulative, the sentences were in fact all imposed concurrently. The end sentence of one year 10 months’ imprisonment reflected the
two year six months starting point on the charge of assault with an instrument

1 This is an appeal pursuant to s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the provisions of that section apply accordingly.

(which included uplifts for the two male assaults female charges) less a 25 per cent guilty plea discount.

Approach on appeal

[5] There were significant areas of common ground between Mr Maaka and…

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 Maaka v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Maaka v The Queen [2014] NZHC 2035
Case: [2014] NZHC 2035
Decision Date: 26 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Maaka appeals against his sentence of one year and 10 months’ imprisonment in relation to eight charges arising from three separate incidents. The first two incidents involved violent and aggressive behaviour towards the police, while the third incident involved violence towards Mr Maaka’s partner. Mr Maaka argues that the sentence imposed on him was manifestly excessive and failed to adequately reflect the totality of his offending. The High Court of New Zealand assessed the appeal and found several errors in the sentencing approach of the District Court. The starting point adopted for the lead offence alone was considered excessive when compared with relevant authorities. Additionally, the cumulative uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment for the two male assaults female charges was deemed excessive. The Court also found that the sentences for the obstructing/resisting and assault on police charges should have been imposed cumulatively, rather than concurrently. Taking these factors into account, the Court found that Mr Maaka’s sentence should be reduced to one year and three months’ imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences imposed in the District Court were quashed, with new sentences substituted in their place.

Orders