Natua v The King - [2025] NZHC 1795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000665 CRI-2025-404-000185

CRI-2025-404-000186 [2025] NZHC 1795

BETWEEN
LUKE NATUA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 24 June 2025

Appearances:

M Ryan for the Appellant R Benic for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 July 2025 at 3 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

NATUA v R [2025] NZHC 1795 [2 July 2025]

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against sentence.

[2] On 16 October 2024, Mr Natua was sentenced by Judge J M Jelaš to eight years and six months’ imprisonment, with a 50 per cent minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for a range of offending committed between 1 August 2021 and 11 October 2023.1 Mr Natua’s offending was extensive and involved both the orchestration of violent offending in the community while he was in prison and, when he was on bail, the accrual of further charges.2

[3] Mr Natua does not challenge the starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment adopted for the totality of the offending. Likewise, he does not contest the uplift of nine months’ imprisonment applied to reflect his offending while subject to a sentence and on bail, the uplift of six months’ imprisonment for previous convictions, or the credit of 15 per cent applied for guilty pleas.3

[4] The focus of Mr Natua’s appeal is on the credit given for his personal mitigating factors and the imposition of a MPI. He submits:

(a)a credit of 20–25 per cent should have been given for Mr Natua’s personal background factors, rather than the 10 per cent provided;

(b)a 10 per cent credit for rehabilitative efforts and remorse should have been applied, rather than the credit of one month provided; and

(c)a MPI should not have been imposed.

1      R v Natua [2024] NZDC 25570.
2      The Manukau Crown charges from August 2021 were: intentional damage, threatening to destroy property, and threatening act (discharging a firearm). The Auckland Crown charges from October 2021 were: aggravated robbery, blackmail, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and attempt to pervert the course of justice (x 3). The Police charges from April 2022–October 2023 were: escaping lawful custody, failing to stop, operating a vehicle recklessly, driving while disqualified (x 3), assault on a person in a family relationship, unlawful possession of a firearm, failure to stop (x 2), driving a motor vehicle dangerously, and aggravated assault.
3      Mr Natua was first charged on 20 March 2022 for the October 2021 offending. He pleaded guilty on 13 June 2024, shortly before trial and following a declined sentence indication. The offending prosecuted by the Manukau Crown involved a 10 per cent discount for guilty plea, following a sentence indication in April 2022. Mr Natua pleaded guilty to the Police charges on 13 June 2024.

[5] The Crown opposes the appeal and submits that the end sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, the credits applied were appropriately…

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 Natua v The King

Details

AGLC: Natua v The King [2025] NZHC 1795
Case: [2025] NZHC 1795
Decision Date: 2 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Natua v The King involves an appeal against sentence, where Mr. Natua contests the imposition of a 50% minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) and the level of credit given for personal mitigating factors and rehabilitative efforts. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, with Mr. Ryan representing the appellant and Mr. Benic representing the respondent. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the mitigating factors presented and the appropriate credit for these factors.

The court examined the legal principles applicable to sentence appeals, highlighting the importance of balancing personal mitigating factors against the need to protect the community. It was noted that the Court of Appeal had previously outlined that appellate courts will not ordinarily interfere unless the end sentence was outside the range available to the sentencing judge. The court then assessed the mitigating factors presented, including Mr. Natua's personal background, mental health issues, and rehabilitative efforts. While acknowledging the troubled background of Mr. Natua, the court found that the 10% credit given for personal background factors was within the appropriate range and that the lack of a discrete credit for remorse was justified by the timing of the guilty pleas.

Regarding the MPI, the court found that while the offending was serious, the high risk of re-offending and harm to others did not justify the imposition of a 50% MPI. The court concluded that the issue of community safety was best left in the hands of the Parole Board, which could monitor and assess Mr. Natua's rehabilitation efforts.

The court dismissed the appeal, except to the extent that the MPI of 50% was quashed. The sentence of eight years and six months' imprisonment remained, but without the MPI.

Orders