Mane v Police - [2012] NZHC 2946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-419-60 [2012] NZHC 2946

TUMATAUENGA MANE
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 7 November 2012

Counsel: J Keung for Appellant
J Tarrant for Respondent

Judgment: 7 November 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

TUMATAUENGA MANE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC HAM CRI-2012-419-60 [7 November 2012]

[1] Mr Mane pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of assault with intent to injure, and two charges of breaching his parole conditions. On 28 August
2012, Judge Tompkins sentenced him to nine months home detention.1 Mr Mane

now appeals to this Court against sentence on the basis that the length of the sentence the Judge imposed was manifestly excessive having regard to the sentence imposed on his co-offender.

The facts

[2] At approximately 11.50 pm on 17 March 2012, Mr Mane and his co-offender, Mr Brown, were walking along Ulster Street in Hamilton. Both had been drinking and were heavily intoxicated.

[3] The victims pulled into the driveway of an address in Ulster Street in a motor vehicle. As they got out of the vehicle, Mr Mane and Mr Brown confronted them and challenged them to fight. The victims responded by repeatedly asking Mr Brown and Mr Mane to leave, and threatening to call the police if they refused to do so. Mr Brown then walked up to one of the victims and punched him on the left side of the face. Mr Mane joined in and began pulling at the first victim, thereby causing his clothing to be ripped.

[4] The second victim then tried to intervene to stop the attack, and both Mr Brown and Mr Mane turned their attentions to him. Mr Brown and Mr Mane ultimately began to leave, but threatened to bring more people around if the complainants called the police. After beginning to leave the property, Mr Brown and Mr Mane then turned around and charged back down the driveway, where they continued the assault on both victims. During this part of the incident, Mr Brown grabbed a broom that one of the victims had obtained to defend himself, and struck that victim in the forehead.

[5] The police were called, and located Mr Brown walking away from the property. They found Mr Mane still inside the property beside the victims’ vehicle.

[6] As a result of this series of assaults, one of the complainants received a blood nose, swelling to his face and bloodshot and sore eyes. The second victim received injuries comprising swelling to the forehead, and swelling and bruising to his ear.

[7] When the police spoke to Mr Mane, he denied assaulting the victims and declined to comment on what had happened whilst he was at the property.

The Judge’s sentencing indication

[8] The recorded notes of the Judge’s sentencing indication are as follows:2

[1] Mr Mane, if there were to be a guilty plea today there would be a remand on bail for preparation of a…

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 Mane v Police

Details

AGLC: Mane v Police [2012] NZHC 2946
Case: [2012] NZHC 2946
Decision Date: 7 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mane v Police involves an appeal by Tumataueenga Mane against the sentence imposed on him by the District Court. Mane had pleaded guilty to two charges of assault with intent to injure and two charges of breaching his parole conditions. The sentencing judge, Judge Tompkins, imposed a sentence of nine months home detention. Mane appealed the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive compared to the sentence imposed on his co-offender, Mr Brown. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the sentence of nine months home detention imposed on Mane was manifestly excessive, particularly in comparison to the sentence imposed on Mr Brown. The Court had to consider the appropriate starting point for Mane's sentence, taking into account his lesser role in the offending, his previous convictions for violent offences, and his breach of parole conditions. Additionally, the Court had to assess whether the sentence of home detention was appropriately aligned with the starting point for imprisonment.

The Court found that the appropriate starting point for Mane's sentence should have been around ten months imprisonment, taking into account his lesser role in the offending and his previous convictions. A discount for the guilty plea would reduce this to approximately six months imprisonment. Given the usual principle that a sentence of home detention is around half the length of the comparable imprisonment sentence, the Court concluded that nine months home detention was manifestly excessive. The Court imposed a sentence of five months home detention instead, maintaining the same conditions as those imposed by the Judge.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the original sentence of nine months home detention. In its place, the Court imposed a sentence of five months home detention, with the same conditions as those imposed by the sentencing Judge.

Orders