Manapori v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2020] NZHC 627
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal against sentence in the case of Manapori v Police. The appellant, Mr Manapori, was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment by Judge Blackie in the District Court at Manukau for various charges including unlawful possession of prohibited firearms, possession of ammunition, cultivating and selling cannabis, and driving while disqualified. Mr Manapori appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The respondent, New Zealand Police, opposed the appeal.

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.