Mata v The King - [2025] NZHC 3197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-377

[2025] NZHC 3197

BETWEEN
RIO PATRICK MATA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 20 October 2025

Appearances:

L Smith for the Appellant

N Narayanan for the Respondent

Judgment:

24 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 October 2025 at 3 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

MATA v R [2025] NZHC 3197 [24 October 2025]

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against sentence.

[2] Rio Mata was sentenced in the Auckland District Court on 4 July 2025 to two years and two months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to the following charges:

(a)unlawfully getting into motor vehicle;1

(b)burglary;2

(c)theft;3

(d)receiving (under $500);4

(e)receiving (over $1,000);5

(f)unlicensed driver failing to comply with prohibition;6 and

(g)possession of utensils used for the consumption of methamphetamine.7

[3] Mr Mata is a recidivist offender with a significant criminal history. The current offending took place while he was on bail for other charges.

[4] Mr Mata appeals on the sole ground that no discount was allowed for his willingness to participate in restorative justice and his application for restorative justice was not advanced. He submits that there was a breach of the mandatory terms of s 24A of the Sentencing Act 2002 (adjournment for restorative justice). This, he says, is significant as a discount for restorative justice may have reduced his sentence

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(c). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment
4      Sections 246 and 247(c). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Sections 246 and 247(1). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52(1)(c). Maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.

to 24 months or less, meaning he would have been eligible for automatic release instead of having to go before the Parole Board.

[5] The Crown opposes the appeal on the basis that restorative justice was directed at arraignment and, even if the restorative justice referral had been properly processed, it is speculative to suggest that a conference would have taken place. Further, the Crown submits a discount sufficient to reduce the sentence to 24 months would have been generous in the circumstances and, in any event, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The offending

[6]I address Mr Mata’s offending briefly.

[7] Between 18 and 19 January 2024, Mr Mata stole a Honda Accord in Onehunga. He was arrested on 20 January 2024 and told Police he had “purchased” the vehicle two days before for half an ounce of marijuana.

[8] On the evening of 25 May 2024, Mr Mata entered an address on Crummer Road through a bedroom window. He did not have permission to be there. He made his way through the house and stole jewellery, car keys, a laptop, and a Westpac bank…

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 Mata v The King

Details

AGLC: Mata v The King [2025] NZHC 3197
Case: [2025] NZHC 3197
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rio Mata appealed against his sentence in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, following his conviction for multiple offences, including burglary, theft, and driving without a licence. The appellant argued that his sentence should have been reduced to 24 months or less due to a failure to consider a discount for his participation in restorative justice, as required by the Sentencing Act 2002. He argued that such a reduction would have made him eligible for automatic release instead of having to face the Parole Board.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in not adjourning the proceedings for restorative justice and if a discount for restorative justice was warranted. The court considered the mandatory terms of s 24A of the Sentencing Act, which requires consideration of restorative justice, and whether the failure to process the restorative justice referral constituted a material error. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that restorative justice was not feasible in this case and that a significant discount would have been generous.

The court found that while the statutory provisions for restorative justice are mandatory, they do not require a delay in sentencing. It was not clear that a restorative justice process would have been available or would have made a difference. The court held that the sentence imposed by Judge Ryan was well within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles and was not manifestly excessive. The court rejected the appellant's argument that a discount for his willingness to participate in restorative justice should have been applied, noting that he was a recidivist offender with a significant criminal history.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders