Manahi v Police - [2021] NZHC 2430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2021-441-17

[2021] NZHC 2430

BETWEEN
TE HEI TE MATATU TYLA MANAHI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 September 2021 (VMR)

Counsel:

J Te Puke-Cowperthwaite for Appellant M J R Blaschke for Respondent

Judgment:

16 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Ms Manahi appeals an overall sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment with standard and special release conditions for six months after the sentence expiry date.1 There are two issues:

(a)the length of the sentence; and

(b)whether it should instead have been a sentence of home detention (or leave to apply for that).

[2] Subsequent to sentencing, the Court has been provided with a s 27 report which provides some fuller context to matters touched on in the PAC report. The respondent supports the Court receiving the report. Further, while not accepting the challenge to the length of the sentence of imprisonment, the respondent agrees the s 27 report provides a basis on which home detention should be substituted. It is noted the

1 New Zealand Police v Manahi [2021] NZDC 12118.

MANAHI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2430 [16 September 2021]

sentencing Judge expressed puzzlement at what underlay the offending and why Ms Manahi was displaying such anger and defiance. The s 27 report provides some insight into that.

[3] The outcome of the appeal will be a sentence of home detention. The issue is the length which involves three matters:

(a)whether the District Court erred in the starting points for the various offences;

(b)whether greater mitigation was appropriate given Ms Manahi’s age and circumstances; and

(c)credit for time now served.

The offending

[4]Ms Manahi’s offending required two separate sentencing considerations:

(a)a collection of offences which were for first sentencing; and

(b)a collection of eight charges which had been sentenced 10 months earlier. The sentences of community detention and supervision had not been complied with and resentencing was sought.

[5] Taking first the new offending, the major offences are best described as arising from a serious driving incident. Ms Manahi was a disqualified driver, but nevertheless driving. Required to stop by police, Ms Manahi drove off. In a built-up area she drove through multiple give way signs and intersections, neither slowing nor giving way. Eventually she lost control, crossed the centre line and collided with a power box. Undeterred by a badly damaged vehicle she continued to drive for about 5 km until a road block was encountered. Ms Manahi drove over a footpath onto a property to avoid it. Eventually she abandoned the car and ran off. The incident was charged as failing to stop, driving in a dangerous manner and disqualified driving (a first charge of third or subsequent).

[6] Two months later Ms Manahi was at a supermarket. She was apparently trying to shoplift. When told to leave by a worker, Ms Manahi first threw something at the person, hitting them, and then began striking 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 Manahi v Police

Details

AGLC: Manahi v Police [2021] NZHC 2430
Case: [2021] NZHC 2430
Decision Date: 16 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Te Hei Te Matatu Tyla Manahi appeals the sentence imposed on her by the District Court. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with standard and special release conditions for six months after the sentence expiry date. Manahi appeals the length of the sentence and argues that she should have been sentenced to home detention instead. The appeal was heard by Justice Simon France who allowed the appeal and quashed the sentence of imprisonment. Instead, Manahi was sentenced to three months home detention with standard conditions for six months after the sentence expiry date and two special conditions for the same period.

The court found that the starting point for the sentence was excessive and that the appellant should have received a 23-month starting point rather than 26 months. The court also found that the appellant should have received an uplift of five months for a guilty plea, rather than the four months uplift given by the District Court. Finally, the court found that the appellant should have received a 20 per cent discount on her sentence due to the new evidence presented to the court, rather than the three months uplift given by the District Court. When these adjustments were made, the court found that Manahi should have received an 11-month sentence of imprisonment rather than the 18-month sentence given by the District Court. However, given the evidence presented to the court, the court found that Manahi should be sentenced to home detention rather than imprisonment.

Orders