Legal Research
Cases
Matangi v Police

Matangi v Police

Case [2018] NZHC 1479 20 June 2018

Disqualification from Driving

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-128

[2018] NZHC 1479

BETWEEN
PEBBLES MATANGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 June 2018

Appearances:

R E V Slade for Appellant

A F Devathasan for Respondent

Judgment:

20 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 June 2018 at 3.45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

MATANGI v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1479 [20 June 2018]

Introduction

[1] On 22 March 2018, Ms Pebbles Matangi was sentenced in the Papakura District Court on three sets of charges arising from offending in October, November and December 2017. Judge Ronayne imposed a total end sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment, as well as disqualification from driving for three and a half years.1

[2] Ms Matangi now appeals against her sentence on the grounds that the Judge erred in failing to give appropriate weight to her personal circumstances, particularly her youth, and in imposing cumulative sentences of imprisonment and disqualification without having regard to totality.

The offending

[3]Ms Matangi was sentenced on the following charges:

Group one: October 2017

Date of offending

Offence

Section

Maximum penalty

14 October

2017

Receiving stolen property (over

$1,000)

ss 246(1) and 247(a) of the Crimes Act 1961

seven years’ imprisonment

14 October

2017

Failing to stop when followed by police (x 2)

s 52A of the Land Transport Act 1998

$10,000 fine

14 October

2017

Possession of an offensive weapon

s 202A of the Crimes Act

three years’ imprisonment

14 October

2017

Possession of utensils for

methamphetamine use

s 13 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

one year

imprisonment or

$500 fine or both

14 October

2017

Reckless driving

s 35 of the Land Transport Act

three months’ imprisonment or a

$4,500 fine;

mandatory

1 Police v Matangi [2018] NZDC 5613.

disqualification of six months or more

14 October

2017

Unlicensed driver failing to comply with prohibition

s 52 of the Land Transport Act

$10,000 fine

Group two: November 2017

5 November

2017

Burglary

s 231 of the Crimes Act

10 years’ imprisonment

5 November

2017

Dishonestly using a document

s 228 of the Crimes Act

seven years’ imprisonment

7 November

2017

Failing to answer bail

s 38 of the Bail Act 2000

one year

imprisonment or a

$2,000 fine

Group three: December 2017

2 December

2017

Unlawful

interference with a motor vehicle

s 226(2) of the Crimes Act

two years’ imprisonment

2 December

2017

Unlawful presence in a building (x 2)

s 29 of the Summary Offences Act 1981

three months’ imprisonment or

$2,000 fine

2 December

2017

Possession of a knife in public

s 13A of the Summary Offences Act

three months’ imprisonment or

$2,000 fine

Group one: the October 2017 offending

[4] On 14 October 2017, while prohibited from driving, Ms Matangi was the driver of a stolen Subaru motor vehicle in Manukau. Police activated their red…

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 Matangi v Police

Details

AGLC: Matangi v Police [2018] NZHC 1479
Case: [2018] NZHC 1479
Decision Date: 20 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pebbles Matangi appeals against her sentence imposed by the Papakura District Court. She was sentenced to a total of 28 months’ imprisonment, as well as disqualification from driving for three and a half years. The appellant submits that the Judge erred in failing to give appropriate weight to her personal circumstances, particularly her youth, and in imposing cumulative sentences of imprisonment and disqualification without having regard to the principle of totality. The respondent contends that the Judge was entitled to adopt a cumulative approach to sentencing, and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the overall offending. The court held that while the Judge was entitled to adopt a cumulative approach, he was required to consider and apply the principle of totality. The court found that the Judge erred in failing to apply a discount across all the charges to reflect the appellant’s youth. The court also found that the Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing cumulative disqualification periods. The appeal was allowed in part and a disqualification period of 18 months was imposed in lieu of the previous disqualification periods.

Orders