Legal Research
Cases
Pakau v Police

Pakau v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 1884 10 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-000013

[2024] NZHC 1884

BETWEEN
BEVAN WHARERANGI PAKAU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 July 2024

Counsel:

D M Goodlet for Appellant H Bullock for Respondent

Judgment:

10 July 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1] Bevan Pakau appeals against a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment1 imposed on 20 March 2024 by Judge Greig for four charges of driving while disqualified (all aggravated in that they were a third or subsequent driving while disqualified charge),2 two charges of failing to stop,3 one of which was aggravated,4 and one charge of failing to answer District Court bail.5 In addition, the Judge disqualified Mr Pakau from driving for 18 months from 21 September 2023 (when Mr Pakau went into custody).

1      Police v Pakau [2024] NZDC 6216 [Sentencing Decision].
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (4); maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment and mandatory disqualification for one year.
3      Sections 52A(1)(a)(ii) and 114(2); maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine.
4      Sections 52A(1)(a)(ii), (3) and (6) and 114(2); maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and mandatory disqualification for six months.
5      Bail Act 2000, s 38.

PAKAU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1884 [10 July 2024]

What happened?

The offending

[2] On 2 July 2022, Mr Pakau was disqualified from driving for 12 months from 8 December 2022. He went on to commit the driving offences that are the subject of this application while he was subject to that disqualification.

[3] On 8 June 2022, police found Mr Pakau sitting alone in the front of a vehicle after seeing the vehicle driving. Mr Pakau said at the time that he knew he was disqualified but drove anyway because it was the easiest way to get around. This led to a charge of driving while disqualified.

[4] On 24 August 2023, Mr Pakau was driving and police signalled for him to stop. Instead, he kept driving, after police had turned on their lights and sirens, he accelerated to past the 50km/h speed limit, crossing the centre line five times. Police stopped the pursuit over concern about the manner of his driving. This led to the charges of driving while disqualified and failing to stop.

[5] On 5 September 2023, Mr Pakau was driving when the police signalled for him to stop by turning on their lights. Mr Pakau accelerated away. He drove over road cones and roadworks. Police stopped the pursuit, again over concern about the manner of his driving. This conduct led to the charges of driving while disqualified and failing to stop.

[6] On 11 September 2023, Mr Pakau was driving a vehicle which had stopped at a red traffic signal. Police, in a patrol car, recognised him and signalled for him to pull over using its lights. Mr Pakau pulled left onto a grass area and then accelerated away from police before pulling back onto the road 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.

Continue reading Pakau v Police

Details

AGLC: Pakau v Police [2024] NZHC 1884
Case: [2024] NZHC 1884
Decision Date: 10 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bevan Pakau appeals against a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Greig for multiple charges including driving while disqualified, failing to stop, and failing to answer District Court bail. The appeal focuses on the sentence's severity, alleging that it was manifestly excessive and contained material errors. The Crown argues that the sentence was justified due to Pakau's extensive criminal history and the risks he posed to community safety.

The legal issues revolve around whether the District Court judge erred in setting the starting point for the sentence and whether the final sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinges on the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to consider the totality principle and avoid double-counting when imposing cumulative sentences.

The Court considered the appropriate starting point for Pakau's offending, noting that previous convictions for driving while disqualified are highly relevant. It found that the District Court judge's starting point of 42 months was too high, given the principles and authorities relevant to such cases. The Court concluded that a more appropriate starting point would be within the range of 34–37 months, considering Pakau's 18th conviction for driving while disqualified and the public endangerment elements in some of his charges. After applying the 30% discount for Pakau's guilty plea and background factors, the Court found that a sentence of 25 months' imprisonment would be more appropriate, amounting to a roughly 10% reduction.

The Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 25 months' imprisonment, concluding that the original sentence was manifestly excessive. This decision aligns with the Court's role in ensuring that sentences are proportionate and do not contain material errors.

Orders