Oka v The King - [2025] NZHC 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-21

[2025] NZHC 1090

BETWEEN
JEFFREY RICHARD CHARLES OKA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 29 April 2025

Appearances:

C Hardy for Appellant L Glaser for Respondent

Judgment:

7 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 May 2025 at 3pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
C Hardy, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

OKA v R [2025] NZHC 1090 [7 May 2025]

The appeal

[1] On 21 February 2025, Judge T R Ingram sentenced Mr Oka to 18 months’ imprisonment on an array of charges to which he had pleaded guilty.1

[2] Mr Oka appeals against that sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive.

[3] The appeal ground is that the starting points for each of the three sets of charges he faced were manifestly excessive.

Summary of result

[4] Ms Hardy has argued the appeal carefully and thoughtfully. However, in my view, it cannot succeed. The overall end sentence, which must be the primary focus of the appeal, while firm perhaps, is certainly not manifestly excessive.

[5] This appeal shows the dangers in selectively focussing on some component parts of a sentence structure where there is said to be an error (in this case the starting points) while too conveniently ignoring other parts which might be said to be very favourable to an appellant. Here, generous reductions were given by the Judge that were greater than that argued for by the appellant. Also, the Judge did not uplift the sentence for significant offending while on bail which he certainly could have done.

[6] Unless some specific component parts of a sentence structure have caused an error in the overall end sentence, then an appeal cannot succeed. The current approach to sentencing perhaps encourages “selective” focus on aspects of a sentence’s composition rather than a robust focus on the end sentence. Put another way, not every alleged error of sentence construction or composition will result in a successful appeal, if the end sentence is nevertheless appropriate. This is such a case.

1 Police v Oka [2025] NZDC 3689.

The offending

[7]Mr Oka was sentenced in respect of three sets of offending.

[8]First, on 4 December 2023, breaching a protection order and wilful damage.

[9] Second, between 6 July 2024 and 23 September 2024, nine theft charges. In each case, bar one, the value of the goods taken was under $500. In the remaining instance, it was between $500-$1000.

[10] Third, on 26 July 2024, aggravated assault, being an assault committed with intent to facilitate his flight on the commission of one of the shoplifting offences.

How the Judge dealt with the charges

[11]The Judge addressed the offending by grouping the charges into three sets.

Theft offences

[12] First, he dealt with the theft offences. The majority of these charges included taking food from supermarkets without paying. The amounts involved ranged from
$4.90 in respect…

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 Oka v The King

Details

AGLC: Oka v The King [2025] NZHC 1090
Case: [2025] NZHC 1090
Decision Date: 7 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeffrey Richard Charles Oka appealed against his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal focused on the starting points for the theft, aggravated assault, and breach of a protection order charges, which the appellant's counsel contended were too high. The court considered the nature of the offending, which included a spree of thefts, an aggravated assault on a shop employee, and a breach of a protection order involving psychological and property abuse. The court found that the starting points, while high, were within an appropriate range considering the persistent and premeditated nature of the offending. The court also noted that the judge had applied significant reductions for the appellant's guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts. The court concluded that the end sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of focusing on the overall end sentence rather than selectively critiquing parts of the sentencing process.

Orders