Pahi v Police - [2018] NZHC 2629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-65 [2018] NZHC 2629

BETWEEN
KAHU KEWENE PAHI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 4 October 2018

Appearances:

A N D Garrett for Appellant
C J Boshier for Respondent

Judgment:

9 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Pahi pleaded guilty to a long list of charges: receiving, possession of cannabis, possession of utensils, possession of ammunition, possession of methamphetamine, careless driving, aggravated driving while disqualified, failing to answer to bail, beach of release conditions, and two charges of failing to appear.

[2] On 22 May Judge Kellar sentenced him to one year and nine months imprisonment.1 Mr Pahi appeals that sentence, saying it is manifestly excessive, and that home detention is the appropriate sentence.

1 Police v Pahi [2008] NZDC 10498.

PAHI v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 2629 [9 October 2018]

The offending

[3] The cannabis, methamphetamine, utensils and ammunition charges arose when Police went to an address on an unrelated matter in June 2017 and found these items in Mr Pahi's possession. The Police also seized two earrings and a diamond ring that
Mr Pahi was wearing. They had been stolen six weeks before, and their combined value was $14,799. Mr Pahi said he had bought them for $100 each, and knew that they were worth over $6,000 because he had seen a receipt. He was charged with receiving on the basis that he was reckless as to whether they were stolen.

[4] In September 2017, Mr Pahi was driving a motorcycle in wet conditions. He lost control and crashed through a fence. He was disqualified from driving at the time having been disqualified from driving following a previous driving while disqualified charge. The most recent driving while disqualified conviction is Mr Pahi's sixth of that kind.

Sentencing

[5] The Judge referred to the pre-sentence report which, while assessing Mr Pahi at a high risk of reoffending, noted that he is highly motivated to reform. Mr Pahi has "left the gang life" and feels he has got over his cycle of offending. His Honour noted factors underlying Mr Pahi's offending include drug use, poor decision making, and association with others who commit offences.

[6] The Judge also noted that while Mr Pahi's mother was happy to have him at her address on an electronically monitored sentence, Oranga Tamariki and the Police have concerns. Mr Pahi has a daughter, and he indicated to the pre-sentence report writer that he very much wanted to be a part of her life.

[7] The Judge took a starting point of nine months for the receiving charge, and uplifted that by 10 months for the driving while disqualified charge, which reflected Mr Pahi's long history of that kind of offending. To that he added two months for the breach of release conditions, and a further two months for the ammunition and drugs charges.

[8] The Judge said he was not applying an…

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 Pahi v Police

Details

AGLC: Pahi v Police [2018] NZHC 2629
Case: [2018] NZHC 2629
Decision Date: 9 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal against sentence by Mr Pahi, who had pleaded guilty to various charges including receiving stolen property, drug possession, and driving while disqualified. The Christchurch District Court sentenced Mr Pahi to one year and nine months imprisonment, a sentence he now appeals as manifestly excessive. He contends that home detention would be a more appropriate sentence. The Crown argued that the sentence was justified given Mr Pahi’s criminal history and the need to hold him accountable and deter further offending.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the District Court erred in imposing a custodial sentence and whether home detention should have been considered. The Court noted that it could only allow the appeal if there was an error in the sentence imposed and an alternative sentence should be imposed. The Court also noted that it must not substitute its own views for those of the sentencing judge unless the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate.

The High Court found no error in the District Court's decision to impose a custodial sentence. While Mr Pahi had demonstrated rehabilitative potential, the District Court was entitled to consider his criminal history and the need for accountability and deterrence. The High Court also noted that the sentence imposed was not excessive and that Mr Pahi was well on his way to breaking the cycle of offending. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders