Matika v Police - [2017] NZHC 1819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2017-463-25 [2017] NZHC 1819

BETWEEN
PETER EDWARD MATIKA

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 2 August 2017

Counsel:

R Vigor-Brown for Appellant
A Gordon for Respondent

Judgment:

2 August 2017

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
Counsel:
R Vigor-Brown, Rotorua

MATIKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1819 [2 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] On 15 July 2016, in the District Court at Tokoroa, Mr Matika entered guilty pleas to one charge of wounding with intent to injure, one of threatening to do grievous bodily harm, one of male assaults female, one of accessing a computer for a dishonest purpose, one of wilful damage and two of breaching release conditions.

[2] Before entering those guilty pleas, Mr Matika’s counsel had asked the presiding Judge to give a sentence indication. That request arose in the context of an application for electronically monitored bail that was before the Judge at that time. The Judge gave an indication and, as a result, Mr Matika decided to enter his pleas.

[3] Judge MacKenzie, in sentencing Mr Matika, imposed an effective end sentence of two years and two months imprisonment.1 In addition, Mr Matika received a First Strike warning.2

Application to extend time to appeal

[4] Mr Matika seeks an extension of time to appeal against sentence. The need for an extension of time springs from the fact that the sentencing took place on 15
July 2016 and the appeal was not filed until 25 July 2017. That was well outside the period of 20 working days permitted by s 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
2011. This Court has power to extend time by virtue of s 231(3).

Analysis

[5] The lead charge for sentencing purposes involved events that occurred on 27

May 2016. There were earlier offences to which guilty pleas were entered that occurred on 8 May and 22 June 2015; the latter involved accessing of the computer system for a bank account in order to change automatic payments being made by persons known to Mr Matika. The events of 27 May 2016, involved domestic
violence.

1 New Zealand Police v Matika [2016] NZDC 13486, at para [21].
2 Ibid, at paras [26] and [27].

[6] Mr Vigor-Brown, for Mr Matika, has drawn my attention to what he submits are discrepancies in the facts on which the District Court Judge was asked to sentence and those arising out of statements given by the complainant at the time and other variations on what occurred that Mr Vigor-Brown has elicited from Mr Matika since he first obtained instructions in February 2017.

[7] I propose to consider the nature of the issues raised by Mr Vigor Brown. I do so because the length of time that has passed between sentencing and the filing of the appeal means that if an extension of time to appeal were to be granted, there would need to be a strong case on the merits…

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 Matika v Police

Details

AGLC: Matika v Police [2017] NZHC 1819
Case: [2017] NZHC 1819
Decision Date: 2 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Peter Edward Matika applied for an extension of time to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed on 15 July 2016 in the District Court at Tokoroa. Matika had pleaded guilty to several charges, including wounding with intent to injure, threatening to do grievous bodily harm, male assaults female, accessing a computer for a dishonest purpose, wilful damage, and breaching release conditions. The appeal was not filed until 25 July 2017, well outside the 20 working days permitted by section 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The High Court has the power to extend time under section 231(3). The primary issue was whether the court should grant an extension of time for Matika to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed by Judge MacKenzie and amounted to an effective sentence of two years and two months imprisonment. Matika's counsel argued that there were discrepancies between the facts presented to the District Court Judge and those arising from statements given by the complainant at the time, as well as other variations on what occurred. The court considered the nature of the issues raised and found that even if there were sufficient discrepancies in the factual assertions, it was not seriously arguable that the end sentence fell outside the range available to the sentencing Judge. The court declined to extend time for the appeal to be brought, as there was no detailed explanation for the delay in bringing the appeal and the appeal was unlikely to succeed.

The High Court dismissed Matika's application to extend time to appeal against his sentence. The court found that there was no detailed explanation for the delay in bringing the appeal and that the appeal was unlikely to succeed. The court noted that Matika's current state of health and the circumstances of the case would be taken into account by the Parole Board when assessing risk in determining whether to grant or refuse parole.

Orders