Legal Research
Cases
Mace v Police

Mace v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 1086 3 May 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-33

[2024] NZHC 1086

BETWEEN
RIKI OREWA MACE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 2 May 2023

Appearances:

M L Brus and B P A Shamy for Appellant W J S Mohammed for Respondent

Judgment:

3 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 May 2024 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

MACE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1086 [3 May 2024]

Introduction

[1] Riki Mace was sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment by Judge Hunt on 1 February 2024 on charges of:1

(a)disorderly behaviour;2

(b)wilful damage;3 and

(c)robbery.4

[2] Mr Mace appeals on the basis the sentence was manifestly excessive as the starting point was not justified, the uplifts were excessive, insufficient credit was given for guilty plea and the two low level offences have been double counted.

Facts

[3] On 25 June 2023, at approximately 2.00 am, the appellant and an associate were intoxicated and standing on the road in between Royleen and Penelope Street. They began yelling and screaming, disturbing the peace within the immediate area.

[4] The victim, who was inside his home address, went outside and confronted the two males who began verbally abusing the victim. The victim’s wife ran outside to try de-escalate the situation, however one male mentioned a gun so both victims ran back to their address.

[5] Shortly after, the victims heard loud banging and saw the appellant kicking and punching their front fence. The victims confronted the two males but the appellant continued to punch and kick the fence causing damage to multiple panels.

[6]The robbery offending occurred on a subsequent date. At approximately

4.07 pm on 30 July 2023, the defendant was opposite the H&M store on Cashel Street,

1      Police v Mace [2024] NZDC 2103.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 3 – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment, $2,000 fine.
3      Section 11(1)(a) – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment, $2,000 fine.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 234 – maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

intoxicated. The victim was walking with his school friends towards the store. The appellant yelled out to the victim and grabbed his waist band, indicating that he was carrying a weapon. He repeatedly asked the victim whether he wanted to be stabbed.

[7] The victim gave the appellant his school bag. He was subsequently located inside the bus exchange and arrested, still in possession of the bag.

District Court decision

[8] After outlining the facts of the offending Judge Hunt noted Mr Mace’s significant history of non-compliance and of offending involving dishonesty and alcohol issues. He also noted there had been times where effort had been directed toward providing Mr Mace with rehabilitative opportunities but these had been ineffective.

[9]In sentencing for the lead offence of robbery, the Judge referred to R v Mako

which provides guidance on…

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 Mace v Police

Details

AGLC: Mace v Police [2024] NZHC 1086
Case: [2024] NZHC 1086
Decision Date: 3 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riki Mace appeals against his sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Hunt for disorderly behaviour, wilful damage, and robbery. The appeal focuses on the appropriateness of the sentence in relation to the starting point, uplifts, guilty plea discount, and the consideration of concurrent offences. The High Court, in a judgment delivered by Dunningham J, accepted the appeal, reducing the sentence to 22 months’ imprisonment and declining leave to apply for home detention. The District Court judge had considered a starting point of 26 months based on the case of R v Mako, which sets out guidelines for aggravated robbery. However, the High Court determined that this starting point was too high for the current offence of robbery, which was less serious than aggravated robbery. The High Court found a starting point of 22 months to be more appropriate. While the appellant argued for a discount due to his alcohol addiction, the High Court found insufficient evidence that his addiction mitigated his moral culpability. The court also found that the appellant's extensive history of dishonesty and property-related offences warranted an uplift. The guilty plea discount was deemed appropriate, and the court found no double counting of offences. Finally, the High Court concluded that, with the adjustments made, a sentence of home detention was not suitable due to the appellant's history of non-compliance with previous sentences.

Orders