Metekingi v Police - [2025] NZHC 1097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-10

[2025] NZHC 1097

BETWEEN
KEANE METEKINGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 2 May 2025

Counsel:

J H Waugh for Appellant I Barfucci for Respondent

Judgment:

8 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[1] Mr Metekingi pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure.1 The charge resulted from an incident outside a party where he punched the victim’s head causing the victim to fall to the ground and lose consciousness. Mr Metekingi then twice punched the victim’s head again, while the victim lay on the ground. The victim sustained a concussion, a fractured nose, and lacerations to his mouth and lower chin. He lost two teeth and a third had to be removed.

[2] At sentencing Mr Metekingi sought a discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002, primarily on the basis of the consequences of a conviction to his promising rugby career. Judge Marinovich declined to discharge Mr Metekingi, after concluding that the gravity of offending and the consequences of conviction were both moderate.2 That meant the consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The Judge instead imposed a sentence of 12 months’

1 Crimes Act 1961 s 189(2): maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2 Police v Metekingi [2025] NZDC 2747.

METEKINGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1097 [8 May 2025]

supervision (with conditions to attend programmes)3 and ordered payment of $1,840 in reparation.

[3] Mr Metekingi appeals the Judge’s refusal to discharge him without conviction. He says the Judge erred in his assessment of both the gravity of the offending, which should have been assessed as low, and the consequences of conviction, which were high. The respondent supports the District Court’s decision. It says the Judge correctly identified that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the offending.

Legal principles

[4] Appeals against a refusal to grant a discharge without conviction pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 are considered as a composite appeal against conviction and sentence.4 As the Court of Appeal explained in Jackson v R, the principled basis on which to determine a s 106 appeal is to establish that a miscarriage of justice has occurred by virtue of a material error by the sentencing Judge in entering the conviction.5 In the alternative, it can be argued that a miscarriage has occurred for any reason if the Judge has erred in applying the principles for discharge without conviction set out in s 107 of the Sentencing Act.6

[5] If satisfied either error is established, the appellate court must set aside the conviction, with the result that the sentence appeal does not require determination.7 A s 106 appeal is not an appeal against an exercise of discretion. The satisfaction of the threshold requirements for discharge in accordance with s 107 is a matter of fact requiring judicial…

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 Metekingi v Police

Details

AGLC: Metekingi v Police [2025] NZHC 1097
Case: [2025] NZHC 1097
Decision Date: 8 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keane Metekingi appeals against the refusal of Judge Marinovich to grant him a discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Mr Metekingi pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure. He punched the victim’s head causing the victim to fall to the ground and lose consciousness. Mr Metekingi then twice punched the victim’s head again, while the victim lay on the ground. The victim sustained a concussion, a fractured nose, and lacerations to his mouth and lower chin. He lost two teeth and a third had to be removed. Judge Marinovich declined to discharge Mr Metekingi, after concluding that the gravity of the offending and the consequences of conviction were both moderate, meaning the consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The Judge instead imposed a sentence of 12 months’ supervision (with conditions to attend programmes) and ordered payment of $1,840 in reparation.

Mr Metekingi argues that the Judge erred in his assessment of both the gravity of the offending, which should have been assessed as low, and the consequences of conviction, which were high. The respondent supports the District Court’s decision. It says the Judge correctly identified that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the offending. The Court rejected Mr Metekingi’s submissions and held that the Judge’s assessment of the gravity of the offending was correct. The Court also rejected Mr Metekingi’s submissions that the consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the offending. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were as follows:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Keane Metekingi to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Orders