Nepia-Rangi v The King - [2025] NZHC 3311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000438

[2025] NZHC 3311

BETWEEN
KEISHA ELAINE NEPIA-RANGI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 November 2025

Counsel:

JWL Webby on instruction from CS Fredric for Appellant NC Vaughan for Respondent

Judgment:

3 November 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. CS Fredric, Auckland.
JWL Webby, Auckland.

NEPIA-RANGI v R [2025] NZHC 3311 [3 November 2025]

The appeal

[1] Keisha Nepia-Rangi received a sentence of 22 and a half months’ imprisonment for arson.1 Ms Nepia-Rangi appeals that sentence. The issue is narrow: whether the Judge should have imposed home detention, or more particularly, granted leave to apply for home detention if a suitable residence became available.2

[2] The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.3

Background

[3] This is best explained by including the entirety of Judge G A Andrée Wiltens’ sentencing remarks, which are concise:

[1] Ms Nepia-Rangi you are here for sentence in relation to an arson charge to which you pleaded guilty in May.

[2] What happened is on the night of 10 February 2025 you seemed to have an argument with your partner about something, and one of you then smashed windows in an adjoining house to where you were staying; and then you went into that house and set fire to a number of places.

[3] First of all, there was a mat hanging on a wall and it was found burning in a number of places itself. So, you tried to set fire to this mat again and again.

[4]Secondly, the middle of the curtains on another wall.

[5] Then there is a curtain on yet another wall which has fallen to the ground and burnt away.

[6] Fortunately, there was not too much damage done but there was clear intent on your part to set fire to the house and even if the number of attempts to light the fire do not indicate that you were walking away from there singing, “burn, burn, burn” – that is fairly indicative of what you were intending for some reason or another. It is unclear why.

[7] I have submissions from both the prosecution and the defence as to what is the appropriate start point in terms of this offending. And there is a quite a difference between them.

[8] I am satisfied that the appropriate start point for this arson is two and a half years’ imprisonment.

1      R v Nepia-Rangi [2025] NZDC 19532.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 80I.
3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).

[9] I take into account the fact that you pleaded at an early stage, so there is a 25 per cent discount that is available for that. There is a further 10 per cent discount that is available for your personal background and the factors that have been mentioned in the reports that I have…

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 Nepia-Rangi v The King

Details

AGLC: Nepia-Rangi v The King [2025] NZHC 3311
Case: [2025] NZHC 3311
Decision Date: 3 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keisha Elaine Nepia-Rangi appealed a sentence of 22 and a half months’ imprisonment for arson, arguing the judge should have imposed home detention or granted leave to apply for home detention. The High Court considered whether the judge erred in not imposing home detention because a suitable residence was not available at the time of sentencing. The court noted that the appellant had a significant criminal history, including failures to comply with bail and release conditions, and had been recommended for imprisonment in the pre-sentence report. Despite the appellant's compliance with compassionate bail for a day, the court found her history and the seriousness of the offending justified the judge's decision not to impose home detention. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders