Mate v The King - [2023] NZHC 2575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-412-063

CRI-2023-412-064 [2023] NZHC 2575

BETWEEN
HIRINI SIDNEY MATE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 14 September 2023

Appearances:

A L Pinnock for Appellant R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

22 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 September 2023 at 3.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin

HIRINI SIDNEY MATE v R [2023] NZHC 2575 [22 September 2023]

[1] The appellant, Hirini Mate, appeals his sentence of four years 10 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Turner on 20 July 20231 in respect of charges arising from two separate incidents; namely charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm2 and of threatening to kill3 which arose on 16 November 2022, and further charges of assault on a person in a family relationship4 and wilful damage5 which arose previously on 26 September 2022.

[2] Under s 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, this Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that there was an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed, otherwise the appeal must be dismissed.

[3] It is well settled that an appeal court should not intervene when a sentence is within the available range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.6 The appeal court should, however, substitute its own view if the sentence under appeal is “manifestly excessive” or one that cannot be justified on the application of relevant sentencing principles.7

[4] The appellant contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive because the Judge identified a starting point which was too high and inadequate discounts were allowed for mitigating factors.

Facts

[5] Mr Mate and the victim had been in a relationship but separated towards the end of October 2022, after he had been charged with the September 2022 offending.

[6] On 16 November 2022, Mr Mate called and messaged the victim asking to come to her home. She refused permission which resulted in his messages turning abusive and threatening. At about 2 pm, while she was having a shower, Mr Mate

1      R v Mate [2023] NZDC 14920.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(1); maximum sentence 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 306; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
6      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
7      Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

entered her home and then the bathroom. Another person at the address had allowed him entry.

[7] When the victim saw him, Mr Mate was told to leave immediately. He refused, became angered by the presence of a male in the house and verbally abused both the victim and the visitor. He grabbed a boning knife from the kitchen bench and held it towards the victim, repeatedly…

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 Mate v The King

Details

AGLC: Mate v The King [2023] NZHC 2575
Case: [2023] NZHC 2575
Decision Date: 22 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Hirini Mate appeals his sentence of four years and ten months' imprisonment imposed for charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, threatening to kill, assault on a person in a family relationship, and wilful damage. The appeal was heard on 14 September 2023 and the judgment was delivered on 22 September 2023. The appellant contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive because the Judge identified a starting point that was too high and inadequate discounts were allowed for mitigating factors. The court considered the starting point for sentencing, the discount for the guilty plea, the global discount for remorse and rehabilitation, and the discount for the s 27 report. The court found that the starting point was appropriate but the discount for the guilty plea should have been 25 per cent rather than 20 per cent. The global discount for remorse and rehabilitation was considered appropriate but the discount for the s 27 report should have been 10 per cent. The effect of not allowing a full discount for the guilty plea and the s 27 report rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The appeal was allowed, the sentence was quashed and substituted with a sentence of three years and ten months' imprisonment.

Orders