Nepata v Police - [2025] NZHC 773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-53

[2025] NZHC 773

BETWEEN
NESBIT MANEY NEPATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 April 2025

Appearances:

E K Moore for Appellant G L Collett for Respondent

Judgment:

3 April 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

NEPATA v POLICE [2025] NZHC 773 [3 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] Nesbit Maney Nepata (aged 34) pleaded guilty to 16 charges of theft not exceeding $500,1 one charge of theft exceeding $1,000,2 and two charges of failing to report to a probation officer as directed.3 He was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment by Judge Farish on 31 January 2025 and now appeals that sentence.4

Facts

[2] Between 8 January 2024 and 23 December 2024 Mr Nepata committed the 17 theft offences. He stole food and other items from supermarkets, took fuel without paying, and stole from a variety of other stores. The total value of items stolen for the 16 lower-level charges is $1,764.08. On 23 December 2024, he stole a dive bag containing items to the value of $3,300. The three victims of that offending were diving off the Kaikoura Peninsula and had left their belongings on the rocks. Mr Nepata took the bag containing two cell phones, prescription glasses, car keys and other personal items. He was later stopped by police and most of the stolen items were located and recovered. He told police he had found them on the beach and that no one had been around.

[3] On 29 May 2024 while on a sentence of supervision Mr Nepata failed to report to a probation officer and two weeks later, on 12 June 2024, while serving his sentence of community work, he again failed to report to a probation officer.

District Court Decision

[4] The Judge adopted a global starting point of 23 months’ imprisonment calculated as one month for each theft not exceeding $500, and four months in relation to the theft of over $1,000 and it appears the Judge imposed a further sentence of one month for each of the charges of failing to report.5 The Judge applied a four-month

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment. The Judge incorrectly categorised these as 17 thefts under $100.
2      Sections 219 and 223(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 71(1)(a) and 70(a); each with maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $1000 fine.
4      Police v Nepata [2025] NZDC 1701.
5      The Judge wrongly referred to 17 rather than 16 charges of theft under $500.

uplift to reflect Mr Nepata’s criminal history and that he had offended whilst on bail— that equates to an uplift of around 17.5 per cent. The Judge then applied a 20 per cent deduction for Mr Nepata’s guilty plea and a five per cent deduction for his rehabilitative prospects. An end sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment was imposed. The Judge refused to grant…

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 Nepata v Police

Details

AGLC: Nepata v Police [2025] NZHC 773
Case: [2025] NZHC 773
Decision Date: 3 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nepata v Police involved an appeal against a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment imposed on Nesbit Maney Nepata for various theft charges and failing to report to a probation officer. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry on 3 April 2025. The court considered several issues, including whether the starting point for the sentence was appropriate, the level of credit for a guilty plea, and the appropriateness of a deduction for the consequences of parental incarceration. The court also examined the primary issue of whether the sentence of imprisonment should have been commuted to a sentence of home detention.

The High Court found that the starting point for the sentence was slightly higher than it should have been due to a clerical error. However, the court acknowledged that the starting point, though at the higher end of the range, was not wholly disproportionate to the gravity of the theft offenses. Regarding the guilty plea credit, the court determined that a full 25 per cent deduction should have been applied rather than the 20 per cent granted by the District Court. The court also found that no deduction for the consequences of parental incarceration was warranted, as Nepata had a long history of offending and had failed to provide stability for his children. The court concluded that a sentence of 19 months' imprisonment, after accounting for all adjustments, was appropriate.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 19 months' imprisonment for the charge of theft over $1,000, while the other sentences remained unchanged. The court also granted leave for Nepata to apply for home detention, but only if he proposed to reside at an appropriate residential rehabilitative facility.

Orders