Ngerengere v The King - [2024] NZHC 889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-8

[2024] NZHC 889

BETWEEN
MATTHEW JAMES NGERENGERE

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2024

Appearances:

M James for Appellant L Glaser for Respondent

Judgment:

16 April 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[As to appeal against sentence]

Solicitors/Counsel:
G Walsh, Barrister, Hamilton Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

NGERENGERE v R [2024] NZHC 889 [16 April 2024]

The appeal

[1]In October 2023, Matthew James Ngerengere pleaded guilty to:

(a)wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice;1

(b)breaching home detention;2

(c)two charges of intentional damage;3

(d)three charges of assault of a person in family relationship;4 and

(e)common assault.5

[2] On 24 January 2024, Mr Ngerengere was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment by Judge N D Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court.6

[3] Mr Ngerengere appeals on the grounds that the starting point for the lead charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice, set by the Judge at 28 months, was too high, and that there was an insufficient reduction for what was said to be Mr Ngerengere’s remorse, with the result that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

[4] Mr Ngerengere also seeks leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, being a short letter of remorse, which I understand was written by him recently while in prison. The Crown maintains technical opposition. That opposition is not pursued with vigour. In the interests of justice, I allow the introduction of that letter and propose to give it consideration.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 117(e); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 80(U); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding $1,500.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 194A; maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, s 196; maximum penalty one year imprisonment.
6      R v Ngerengere [2024] NZDC 1499.

[5] I have a clear view about this appeal. Frankly, it must fail. The end sentence, given the width and seriousness of the offending, is not manifestly excessive. In my view it is appropriate. There has been no error demonstrated in the Judge’s approach. What follows are my detailed reasons.

The facts

Summary of the offending overall

[6] Mr Ngerengere and the victim had been in an intimate relationship for approximately four years. The relationship was violent. Without any disrespect to Mr Ngerengere, he is no stranger to these types of charges.

[7] In February 2022, he was convicted of a different charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, assault with intent to injure and threatening to kill—all in respect of this same victim. He was sentenced to six months home detention and released on clear conditions that he not contact the victim.

[8] On 26 October 2022, he visited the victim at her home address, pushing open the bedroom door with such force that the handle damaged the wall. That led…

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 Ngerengere v The King

Details

AGLC: Ngerengere v The King [2024] NZHC 889
Case: [2024] NZHC 889
Decision Date: 16 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew James Ngerengere appealed against his sentence for various charges, including wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice, breaching home detention, and multiple instances of assault and intentional damage. The District Court had sentenced him to two years and nine months' imprisonment. Ngerengere argued that the starting point for his lead charge was too high and that there was insufficient reduction for his remorse, making the sentence manifestly excessive. Additionally, he sought to introduce a letter of remorse written recently in prison.

The Court examined the seriousness of Ngerengere's offending, which included a sustained campaign to manipulate the victim into dropping charges against him. The Court noted that the offending was extensive and manipulative, involving psychological abuse over several months. The Court concluded that the starting point of 28 months was appropriate given the nature and seriousness of the offending. The Court also found that the generous discount for the guilty plea adequately accounted for remorse, and there was no need for a separate reduction for remorse. The Court held that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

The Court's final orders were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders