Mareraki v Police - [2015] NZHC 161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-409-000124 [2015] NZHC 161

BETWEEN
MARGARET MARERAKI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 5 February 2015

Appearances:

K Paima for Appellant
D L Elsmore and N A Pointer for Respondent

Judgment:

13 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against a sentence imposed on 23 October 2014 by Judge Crosbie in the Christchurch District Court1 of 100 hours’ community work and six months’ supervision following a guilty plea on one charge of common assault under s 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

[2] Ms Mareraki now appeals that sentence on the basis that:

(a) The sentencing Judge erred by taking into account an irrelevant consideration; and

(b)That ultimately the sentence imposed in the prevailing circumstances was manifestly excessive.

1 NZ Police v Mareraki CRI-2014-009-9419.

MARERAKI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 161 [13 February 2015]

[3] On the basis that her argument on this appeal may be successful, counsel for the appellant submits that one of the following two alternative sentences might be considered here as appropriate:

(a) A fine, together with an order of reparation to be paid to the victim; or

(b)The sentence of community work is quashed with the supervision sentence remaining undisturbed.

Background

[4] The assault charge followed an incident which took place on 5 October 2014 when the police were attending a call-out to a party at Clyde Road, Bryndwr. Fighting had broken out at the gathering earlier in the evening. The female victim had already received injuries to her head, presumably from her participation in the earlier altercation. While the police were in attendance, the victim approached Ms Mareraki, who physically assaulted her by grabbing the victim around the head, bending her forward at the waist and punching her twice in the face using an uppercut style punch.

[5] When questioned by police about her actions, Ms Mareraki admitted punching the victim, but said she only did so because it was the victim who had started the fighting earlier in the night, and this had caused injury to Ms Mareraki’s mother.

[6] On 23 October 2014 Ms Mareraki appeared before Judge Crosbie in the District Court and was represented by a duty solicitor. A guilty plea was entered and counsel submitted the offending was out of character in that Ms Mareraki had not offended for almost four years, she was now a full time student and she was a single parent.

[7] Judge Crosbie however did not appear to accept there was any evidence of change in her life and it seems he chose to interpret the events as evidence that Ms Mareraki had “gone back into her old ways”. He concluded the offending was “moderate to serious assault indicative of an anger issue”, that the assault was not

part of the general melee occurring after these events, and that Ms Mareraki was a woman who had anger issues and needed help. As to this aspect, the six…

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 [2015] NZHC 161
Case: [2015] NZHC 161
Decision Date: 13 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Margaret Mareraki appealed against a sentence imposed by Judge Crosbie in the Christchurch District Court on 23 October 2014. The sentence was 100 hours’ community work and six months’ supervision following a guilty plea on one charge of common assault under s 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981. Ms Mareraki argued that the sentencing judge erred by taking into account an irrelevant consideration, and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. She sought an alternative sentence of a fine, together with an order of reparation to be paid to the victim, or the sentence of community work to be quashed with the supervision sentence remaining undisturbed.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was an error in the sentence imposed and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The court noted that Ms Mareraki was able to appeal the sentence imposed on her as of right. The court also noted that the combination sentence imposed by the Court utilised s 20 of the Sentencing Act 2002, and that in order to impose a combination sentence the Court must be satisfied that imposing one of the sentences alone or any less restrictive sentence combination would not accord with the purposes for which the sentence is imposed or the s 8 principles as applied to the case.

The court found that there was no error in the end sentence imposed by Judge Crosbie. The court found that the appellant’s extensive criminal history largely made up of dishonesty offences was noted. The respondent conceded however that there was an absence of any violent offending in the past and also that Ms Mareraki had not offended since March 2010. The court found that it was too serious a matter to be dealt with simply by a fine and that the conclusions reached by Judge Crosbie that Ms Mareraki was a woman who had anger issues and needed help and, although there had been a break in her offending recently, she had a long list of previous offending, was unobjectionable. The court found that in spite of the erroneous reference to the appellant’s non-co-operation attitude with the police (which is now acknowledged as wrong), there is no error in the end sentence imposed by Judge Crosbie. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Orders