Mareraki v Police - [2023] NZHC 3096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-201 CRI-2023-409-202

CRI-2023-409-203 [2023] NZHC 3096

BETWEEN BERNINA AUNZHER-LEENA MARERAKI
Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 26 October 2023

Appearances:

A J Greaves for the Appellant

J H Whitcombe for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

[1] Bernina Mareraki appeals against the sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment imposed in the Christchurch District Court by Judge Phillips on 29 September 2023. She contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive because the starting point adopted on the lead charge and the uplift for offending on bail were too high and the credit for personal mitigating factors was insufficient.

[2]The appeal is opposed by the Crown.

[3] I have decided to dismiss the appeal. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.

MARERAKI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 3096 [2 November 2023]

The charges and the offending

[4] Ms Mareraki was before the District Court for sentence on 22 charges of shoplifting, together with one charge of driving whilst forbidden). Mr Greaves for Ms Mareraki provided a useful schedule outlining the charges and the value of the items stolen. The items stolen range in value from $42.80 to $1,319.89. For three of the charges, the value of the items stolen was over $1,000.1 For four charges of shoplifting the items stolen had a value of between $500 and $1,000,2 and for the remaining 16 charges the items stolen had a value of under $500.3

[5] Ms Mareraki accepted the various summaries of facts. The offending typically involved Ms Mareraki entering commercial retail premises, picking up items and leaving the store without paying for them. The total value of the goods stolen amounted to $9,425.23. The offending spanned a period of approximately 13 months, from 29 May 2022 until 27 June 2023. Mr Greaves submitted that the offending, while occurring over a lengthy period, was, of itself, unsophisticated, did not involve a breach of trust and the total loss was moderate. I largely agree with his assessment apart from as it relates to the total value of the goods stolen. When looked at in totality, the value of the goods stolen is significant.

[6] The various reports that were available at sentencing indicate that the offending was primarily motivated by Ms Mareraki’s addiction to alcohol and her desire to provide for her family and those around her.

District Court decision

[7] Judge Phillips adopted a global starting point of three years’ imprisonment. This was reached by adopting a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment on the lead offence of shoplifting over $1,000 (CRN ending 0279), uplifted on a totality basis by a further 18 months.

1      Maximum penalty is a term of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Maximum penalty is a term of one year’s imprisonment.
3      Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

[8] Further uplifts (equating to 16 per cent) were imposed of three months for offending whilst on bail, and 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 Mareraki v Police

Details

AGLC: Mareraki v Police [2023] NZHC 3096
Case: [2023] NZHC 3096
Decision Date: 2 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Bernina Mareraki appealed against the 25-month imprisonment sentence imposed on her by the Christchurch District Court. The appeal argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the high starting point on the lead charge, the uplift for offending on bail, and the insufficient credit for personal mitigating factors. The Crown opposed the appeal. The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the starting point, uplifts, and discounts applied by the District Court were within the appropriate range.

The legal issues in this appeal centered on whether the starting point for the lead charge was too high, if the global uplifts were excessive, and if sufficient credit was given for personal mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal emphasized that it would only intervene if the sentence was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.

Regarding the starting point for the lead charge, the Court found that the 18 months’ imprisonment was at the upper end of the range but was justified based on the recidivist nature of the offending. The overall global starting point, including the uplift for the remaining charges, was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

The Court also found no basis to interfere with the global uplift, particularly the three months for offending on bail, as it was within the appropriate range given the recidivist nature of the offending. Lastly, the Court concluded that sufficient credit was given for personal mitigating factors, including background factors and addiction, and that no further discount was appropriate for the interests of Mareraki’s children.

In conclusion, the Court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed, and the sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment remains in place.

Orders