Mika v Police - [2025] NZHC 2726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2025-463-99

[2025] NZHC 2726

BETWEEN
TUPAEA MIKA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 5 September 2025

Appearances:

R Adams and M Dunn for Appellant M Tutton-Harris for Respondent

Judgment:

18 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 September 2025 at 2.30 pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Adams Law, Tauranga
Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga

MIKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2726 [18 September 2025]

[1] The appellant Mr Tupaea Mika appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge L M Bidois on 31 July 2025.1

[2] Mr Mika was sentenced on two charges under s 62(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998:2

(a)careless driving while under the influence of drink or a drug causing death; and

(b)careless driving while under the influence of drink or a drug causing injury.

[3]The sentence imposed was 14-and-a-half months’ imprisonment.

[4] Mr Mika appeals his sentence on the grounds that the Judge erred by not commuting the sentence to home detention.

Background

[5] Mr Mika was driving on a restricted driver’s license on the morning of 4 October 2024. He had finished working a night shift at around 3 am and drove from Tauranga to Kawerau.

[6] At around 6.30 pm that same day he drove to Ruatoki and went to Kapa Haka held at a marae. There, he drank beer. Mr Mika then drove away from the marae. At about 11.30 pm, he was travelling along State Highway 2. As he approached a sweeping left-hand bend, he crossed the centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle. The vehicles collided head-on and the impact pushed the victim’s vehicle backwards around 10.5 metres and sideways off the road.

[7] In the oncoming car was Ms Mohi-Roberts (in the passenger seat) and her daughter, who was driving. They had just finished work near Te Puke and were driving

1 Police v Mika [2025] NZDC 17766.
2 Maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment or $1,000 fine; and at least 1 year disqualification.

home. Ms Mohi-Roberts took most of the impact and was trapped in the vehicle after the crash. She was flown to Waikato Hospital and died as a result of her injuries.

[8] Ms Mohi-Roberts’s daughter was able to get out of the vehicle and check on her mother and Mr Mika. She sustained a 2 cm cut to her knee which required stitches and hospitalisation, as well as abrasions, tenderness and bruising.

[9] Mr Mika admitted to drinking 8–10 beers at the marae but stated he could not remember why he was driving or where he was heading to.

[10] A blood sample taken from Mr Mika approximately five hours after the crash returned a result of 53 +/-3 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood. The legal limit for a driver under the age of 20 years is zero. The likely blood alcohol at the time of…

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 Mika v Police

Details

AGLC: Mika v Police [2025] NZHC 2726
Case: [2025] NZHC 2726
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Tupaea Mika, appealed against his sentence imposed by Judge L M Bidois on 31 July 2025. Mika was sentenced on two charges under s 62(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998 for careless driving while under the influence of alcohol causing death and injury. The sentence imposed was 14-and-a-half months’ imprisonment. Mika appealed on the grounds that the Judge erred by not commuting the sentence to home detention. The legal issues involved the proper application of sentencing principles and the discretion of the sentencing Judge. The court examined whether the Judge appropriately balanced the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation in determining the sentence, and whether the sentence imposed was within the range available to the sentencing Judge. The Court found that the Judge appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the appellant's culpability, the harm caused, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Judge's decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention was considered appropriate given the gravity of the offending and the need to uphold community standards. The Court concluded that there was no material error in the Judge’s sentencing decision and dismissed the appeal.

Orders