Maniapoto-Grant v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-133

CRI-2020-463-134 [2021] NZHC 1084

BETWEEN
KAEA MANIAPOTO-GRANT

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 14 May 2021

Appearances:

M James for the Appellant

M Davie for the Crown (via AVL link)

Judgment:

14 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment is delivered by me on 14 May 2021 at 3:30 pm

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel:
M James, Barrister, Hamilton
M Davie, Crown Law, Wellington

MANIAPOTO-GRANT v R [2021] NZHC 1084 [14 May 2021]

[1] Ms Maniapoto-Grant appeals her sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Snell in the Rotorua District Court on 17 July 2020 in respect of the following charges:

(a)dangerous driving causing death;1

(b)dangerous driving causing injury;2

(c)failing to answer bail;3

(d)possession of cannabis for sale;4

(e)possession of utensils;5 and

(f)unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.6

[2] Her counsel submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to a cultural report now to hand and that an appropriate sentence is in the range of three years and six months’ to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. I note that counsel on the appeal was not counsel at the sentencing.

[3] The Notice of Appeal was filed out of time. Ms Maniapoto-Grant accordingly seeks an extension of time which the Crown does not oppose. The delay has been explained and no prejudice results. She also applies for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal, namely, the recently received cultural report. Again, the Crown does not oppose the application. I consider the report necessary to enable proper consideration of the appeal point. I grant both applications.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36AA(1)(b): carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 36(1)(b): carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
3      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a): carrying a maximum penalty of one year of imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f): carrying a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 13(1)(a) and (3): carrying a maximum penalty of one year of imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2): carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

Background

[4] These charges arise out of two distinct periods of offending. By way of background, the appellant did not have a driver’s licence. On 14 December 2016 the Police stopped the appellant and forbade her from driving until she obtained a licence. Between that date and 12 July 2019 the appellant received two convictions for driving while disqualified and five convictions for being an unlicensed driver and failing to comply with relevant prohibitions.

[5] On 5 February 2019 the appellant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for breach of home detention conditions with standard and special release conditions. Community probation required the appellant to undertake and complete the Howard League Driver Education Programme. She failed to do so.

[6]The first tranche of offending occurred in July 2019.

[7] The appellant’s cousin’s friend…

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 Maniapoto-Grant v The Queen 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: [2021] NZHC 1084
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence brought by Kaea Maniapoto-Grant in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, involves a series of charges including dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing injury, failing to answer bail, possession of cannabis for sale, possession of utensils, and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. The appellant’s sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge Snell in the Rotorua District Court, is contested on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, especially considering a cultural report that was not available at the time of sentencing. Counsel for the appellant argues that an appropriate sentence falls within the range of three years and six months to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the appeal against the sentence was valid despite being filed out of time, whether the appellant was entitled to present further evidence in the form of a cultural report, and most significantly, whether the cultural report provided a sufficient basis to reduce the sentence. The court had to assess the relevance and impact of the appellant’s cultural background and upbringing on her culpability and moral responsibility for the offences.

The court granted the applications for an extension of time and to adduce further evidence. In considering the cultural report, the court acknowledged the challenging circumstances of the appellant’s upbringing but found that while these factors contributed to her offending, they did not sufficiently diminish her culpability to warrant a substantial reduction in her sentence. The court determined that a discount of 10 per cent was appropriate, resulting in a revised sentence of four years and one month imprisonment for the lead charge of dangerous driving causing death, with the rest of the sentence remaining unchanged.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal against sentence, set aside the original sentence, substitute a new sentence of four years and one month imprisonment for the lead charge, and confirm the existing sentence in all other respects.

Orders