Ngahuru v Police - [2019] NZHC 869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-409-18

[2019] NZHC 869

BETWEEN
ADAM NGAHURU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 April 2019

Appearances:

C Lee for Appellant

K A Courteney for Respondent

Judgment:

17 April 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] The appellant has been convicted of two counts of male assaults female, four counts of wilful damage, one count of assaulting police, one count of possession of cannabis and one of failing to answer District Court bail. He was sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment by Judge O’Driscoll on 16 January 2019.1 Mr Ngahuru appeals that sentence on the grounds that both the starting points and end sentence are manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] The offences relate to a number of events. The cannabis offending occurred on 4 April 2018, when the appellant was standing in the middle of a road and yelling at traffic. He was arrested for disorderly behaviour and cannabis was found in his possession.

1 Police v Ngahru [2019] NZDC 558.

NGAHURU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 869 [17 April 2019]

[3] On 22 April 2018 an incident occurred which resulted in one offence of male assaults female, two of intentional damage and one of assaulting police. The appellant arrived at his mother’s address and asked her for money. When she asked him to leave, he slapped her on the face. Fearing for her safety, she phoned the police. The appellant then kicked her television, damaging the screen. When the police arrived he resisted them, refused to get into a police car and kicked out at the police. Once in the car he spat blood and saliva at a police officer, which landed on his arm. He spat blood and saliva onto another officer’s shoulder and side of his face.

[4] Most of the remaining offences relate to offending that occurred throughout May 2018 against the appellant’s partner. There had been eight reported family harm incidents between the two of them since December 2017. At the start of May the appellant and victim were upstairs at the victim’s home address, and an argument took place. The victim ran to the bathroom and locked the door. The appellant started screaming at her to unlock the door, banging and kicking it with full force until he smashed it open. The bathroom door hinge and lock were smashed. The victim opened the bedroom window to yell out to the neighbours for help.

[5] The same week there was another argument and the victim ran to the toilet, locking the door behind her. The appellant banged on the door until he smashed through it and pulled the victim into the doorway. He told the victim it was her fault he had broken the door and she should not have shut it when he wanted to talk to her. The toilet door was ripped off the frame and the lock was damaged.

[6] On 28 May the appellant and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ngahuru v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 869
Decision Date: 17 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to consider an appeal by Adam Ngahuru against his 25-month prison sentence, imposed by Judge O’Driscoll on January 16, 2019. Ngahuru was convicted of various offences, including male assaults female, wilful damage, assaulting police, possession of cannabis, and failing to answer District Court bail. Ngahuru contended that both the starting points and the end sentence were manifestly excessive. The primary legal issues in this case were whether the starting points for each set of offending and the overall sentence imposed by the District Court were appropriate under the relevant sentencing principles.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the authorities to determine if the sentence was within the appropriate range. The High Court found that while the District Court's decision to impose cumulative sentences for the separate incidents of offending was correct, the starting points adopted for each set of offending were too high. The court observed that a starting point of 12 months for the first set of offending, which involved slapping his mother, damaging her television, and assaulting police, was excessive. The court considered a starting point of four months for the assault, increased to six months for the wilful damage and assaulting police offences to be more appropriate. For the second set of offending, the court found that a 12-month starting point was within range.

The court concluded that the overall sentence of 25 months was excessive, even after considering the totality principle. The High Court decided that an overall end sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was appropriate, with the additional two months for the cannabis and breach of bail charges to be served concurrently.

In summary, the High Court allowed the appeal and imposed a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. The court found that the starting points for each set of offending and the overall sentence imposed by the District Court were manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.

Orders