Mihinui v Police - [2018] NZHC 2705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-419-000042 [2018] NZHC 2705

BETWEEN
SATRIANI MIHINUI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2018

Appearances:

G Prentice for Appellant
A A R Pell for Respondent

Judgment:

18 October 2018

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

MIHINUI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2705 [18 October 2018]

[1] Mr Mihinui pleaded guilty in the District Court to the following charges:

• 22 December 2017

Male assaults female – assault with intent to injure – assault with a weapon

• 26 December 2017

• Injuring with intent to injure

• 13 January 2018

• Assault with intent to injure

• 22 January 2015

• Male assaults female – intentional damage – assault with intent to injure –

assault on police (x 2)

[2] On 26 March 2018, Judge Cocurullo sentenced Mr Mihinui to an effective term of three years nine months imprisonment on all charges.1 Mr Mihinui appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in several respects when constructing the sentence, and these errors led to an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The charges

22 December 2017

[3] In the early hours of 22 December 2017, Mr Mihinui and his partner were at his partner’s mother’s address in Waitara. After they began to argue Mr Mihinui sat on top of his partner whilst she was lying on the bed. He then used his open left hand to push her face up against the wall. Whilst his partner was in this position, he placed his right hand around her throat and squeezed, thereby restricting her ability to breathe but leaving her with no lasting injury.

1 New Zealand Police v Mihinui [2018] NZDC 5734.

[4] Mr Mihinui and his partner then went outside the address. When his partner broke free from him, Mr Mihinui swung a piece of wood at her head. This glanced off her scalp, narrowly avoiding injury.

26 December 2017

[5] On this date, Mr Mihinui and his partner were together at an address in Hamilton, during which an argument again occurred Mr Mihinui grabbed an extension cord and wrapped it round his partner’s neck to the point where she could not breathe. She attempted to escape by scratching and hitting Mr Mihinui. He eventually loosened the cord to allow her to breathe. At that point he began apologising to his partner and kissing and hugging her. Shortly thereafter, however, he put the cord back around her neck and squeezed it tightly. On this occasion, his partner lost consciousness and eventually passed out. He did not loosen the cord until after she had lost consciousness and begun twitching.

13 January 2018

[6] On 13 January 2018, Mr Mihinui and his partner were in the garage of an address. Another argument ensued. Mr Mihinui began throwing clothing around the garage. He then walked up to his partner and punched her three times to the…

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 Mihinui v Police

Details

AGLC: Mihinui v Police [2018] NZHC 2705
Case: [2018] NZHC 2705
Decision Date: 18 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Mihinui v Police, the appellant, Satriani Mihinui, appealed against his sentence on the basis that the Judge had erred in several respects when constructing the sentence, leading to an end sentence that was manifestly excessive. Mihinui had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of assault and had been sentenced to an effective term of three years nine months imprisonment by Judge Cocurullo in the District Court. The appellant argued that the Judge's application of totality principles and the uplift for previous convictions led to a sentence that was excessively harsh. The central issues were whether the starting point for the sentence was appropriate and whether the uplifts applied for previous convictions and the fact that much of the offending occurred while Mihinui was on bail were justified.

The Court considered the severity of the offending, which involved repeated and serious violence against the same victim, including incidents where the victim lost consciousness. The Court found that the starting point selected by the Judge was appropriate, and the end sentence of three years nine months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. While the Court acknowledged that the uplift for previous convictions might be slightly outside the available range, it was balanced by other factors, such as the fact that much of the offending occurred while Mihinui was on bail and the sentence for the most serious charges being at the lower end of the available range.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Judge's sentence was within the appropriate range and did not err in a way that rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders