Makiri v Police - [2019] NZHC 1811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-381

[2019] NZHC 1811

BETWEEN
GLENN MAKIRI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 March 2019, supplementary submissions 3 and 8 April 2019

Appearances:

T D Clee for the appellant

R M Gibbs for the respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2019 at 11.00am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
T D Clee, Barrister, Auckland Crown Solicitor, Manukau

MAKIRI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1811 [30 July 2019]

Summary

[1] Mr Glenn Makiri pleaded guilty to injuring with intent to injure and contravening a protection order, on the basis of a sentence indication. He appeals the resulting sentence by the District Court of six months’ community detention but not the sentence of 18 months’ intensive supervision. He says the sentence is not consistent with the sentence indication but he does not wish to alter his plea. Rather, he requests the High Court conduct a re-sentencing. I do not consider the District Court erred in imposing its sentence. I would not impose a different sentence. I dismiss the appeal.

What happened?

[2] On 21 March 2018, Mr Makiri had an argument with his partner at her home in Auckland. Mr Makiri pushed her in the head four or five times, moving her from the hallway to the kitchen. He grabbed her by the hair and dragged her to the lounge. He kept pulling her hair, holding her back from running away. He pulled her back when she ran to the door. When she ran down the hallway, he squeezed her neck for 10 seconds, preventing her from breathing. He head-butted her, splitting her forehead open. When she said she would call the Police he said he would say she hit him first and struck himself in the head with a candle-glass. Mr Makiri whipped the victim with a wet towel three or four times, bruising her face. She received a large cut to her forehead and bruising to her face and throat. In her victim impact statement, she said she has a large scar down the middle of her face.

[3] Mr Makiri was charged with injuring with intent to injure and contravening a protection order. Those offences are punishable by maximum penalties of five years’ and three years’ imprisonment respectively. On 14 September 2018, in the Manakau District Court, Judge Blackie gave Mr Makiri a sentence indication, which he accepted that day.1 He pleaded guilty to the charges. Corrections’ pre-sentence report stated Mr Makiri did not take full responsibility for his actions and disputed the summary of facts, on the basis of which he pleaded guilty. It assessed his risk of harm as medium

1 Police v Makiri DC Manukau, CRI-2018-092-3528, 14 September 2018.

and risk of re-offending as high due to his history and lack of remorse. On 23 November…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Makiri v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 1811
Decision Date: 30 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glenn Makiri appeals the six-month community detention sentence imposed by the District Court following his guilty plea to charges of injuring with intent to injure and contravening a protection order. The appeal does not challenge the 18 months’ intensive supervision aspect of the sentence. The appeal hinges on the argument that the District Court did not properly consider the sentence indication given before the guilty plea, which led to a disparity between the expected sentence and the actual sentence imposed. The High Court must determine whether the District Court erred in imposing its sentence.

The court reviews the sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which govern sentence indications and appeals. The court must decide whether the sentence imposed by the District Court falls within the permissible range and if the sentence aligns with the principle of proportionality and deterrence. The court also considers the nature of the crime, the offender's history, and the effectiveness of the sentence in preventing future offending.

After reviewing the arguments presented by both parties, the court concludes that the District Court did not err in imposing its sentence. The court finds that the sentence indication provided a range rather than a specific sentence, and the District Court was within its discretion to choose a community-based sentence instead of imprisonment. The court also notes that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the severity of the offences and the offender's history of violence. The court finds that the sentence of six months’ community detention and 18 months’ intensive supervision was justified and does not constitute an error warranting a different sentence.

The appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence of six months’ community detention and 18 months’ intensive supervision is upheld.

Orders