IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2020-404-000040
[2020] NZHC 627
BETWEEN TYNAN MANAPORI
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 23 March 2020 Appearances:
H Croucher for the Appellant H Watts for the Respondent
Judgment:
24 March 2020
JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J
[Appeal against sentence]
This judgment was delivered me on 24 March 2020 at 1:30 pm.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:
MANAPORI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 627 [24 March 2020]
Introduction
[1] On 3 February 2020 Judge Blackie, in the District Court at Manukau, sentenced the appellant, Mr Manapori, to 20 months’ imprisonment in respect of a number of charges, namely:1
(a)two charges of unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm (pump action shotguns);
(b)one charge of possession of ammunition (99 rounds of live shotgun shells);
(c)one charge of cultivating cannabis;
(d)one charge of selling/supplying cannabis; and
(e)one charge of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent).
[2] Mr Manapori appeals against the sentence, arguing that it is manifestly excessive.
[3]The appeal is opposed by the respondent.
Factual background
[4] On 20 August 2018, Mr Manapori was convicted of driving while suspended. Four months later, on 19 January 2019, Mr Manapori failed to stop, when he was being followed by a police car with its red and blue lights activated. He was convicted and disqualified from driving for six months from 25 July 2019. Two days later, on Saturday, 27 July 2019, at 1:40 am, Mr Manapori was driving a vehicle in Epsom. He was stopped by the Police for an unrelated matter. He explained that he was the sober driver for friends and on his way to pick them up. Mr Manapori appeared before the Court on the charge of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent) on 7 August 2019. He was granted bail.
1 Police v Manapori [2020] NZDC 1769.
[5] One month later, on 6 September 2019, a property manager was in the process of evicting Mr Manapori from the home rented by him. She went to the house to change the locks. She discovered a grow room and a number of cannabis plants in an outside sleep house. She called the Police. They located 46 cannabis plants and 2.073 kilograms of dried cannabis buds hanging from the ceiling in two separate rooms in the sleep house. They also found two pump action shotguns in Mr Manapori’s bedroom, together with 99 live shotgun shells. When spoken to by the Police, Mr Manapori said that he had been growing cannabis for about a month-and-a-half for personal use, and that he had purchased the two shotguns and ammunition about a month apart to protect himself from any harm.
[6] The pump action shotguns were prohibited firearms pursuant to s 2A of the Arms Act 1983, as amended in 2019.
[7] Mr Manapori appeared before the Court on the various charges noted above on 12 September 2019. He requested a sentence indication.
[8] On 3 October 2019 Mr…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Manapori 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 627
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether the court had erred in not considering home detention as an alternative to imprisonment. The court needed to assess whether the sentence was within the appropriate range and whether the purposes of denunciation and deterrence were adequately served.
The court found that Judge Blackie had not erred in imposing the sentence of imprisonment. The court acknowledged that the appellant had a history of drug-related offending and that the possession of firearms, particularly in the context of drug-related activity, warranted a severe response. The court emphasised that the purposes of denunciation and deterrence were paramount in this case, and that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offending. The court also noted that the appellant's sentence was reduced by almost 15 per cent to reflect his age and personal circumstances, and that a full 25 per cent discount was given for his guilty pleas. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.