Paparoa v Police - [2023] NZHC 2978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-444

[2023] NZHC 2978

BETWEEN
EZEKIEL NIKORA PAPAROA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 October 2023

Appearances:

P Pati for Appellant

A Al-Janabi and A Fry for Respondent

Judgment:

25 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 25 October 2023 at 10.00 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
P Pati, Auckland
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

PAPAROA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2978 [25 October 2023]

[1] Mr Paparoa pleaded guilty in the District Court to one charge of causing death by being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst the proportion in his blood exceeded the statutory maximum. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless driving and three charges of causing bodily injury by being in charge of a motor vehicle having that level of alcohol in his blood.

[2] On 26 July 2023, Judge J C Moses sentenced Mr Paparoa to two years four months imprisonment on the charge of causing death whilst driving with excess blood alcohol.1 He imposed concurrent sentences of imprisonment on the remaining charges.

[3] Mr Paparoa appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge failed to give Mr Paparoa adequate discounts to reflect his remorse. He contends this resulted in an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The charges

[4] The charges were laid as a result of an incident that occurred in the early hours of 13 August 2022. On the afternoon and evening of the previous day Mr Paparoa had been drinking and socialising with the three victims. Two of them were sisters and the third was their cousin. One of the victims was his partner.

[5] Mr Paparoa and the three victims went to a beach in a rural area at about 10 pm and remained there for approximately two and a half hours drinking alcohol and listening to music. Mr Paparoa and two of the victims were also inhaling nitrous oxide during that period. Consumption of nitrous oxide can result in dizziness, disorientation, loss of balance, impaired memory and impaired cognition.

[6] At around 12.45 am, Mr Paparoa began driving the victims back to town. Neither of the passengers in the rear seat of the vehicle was wearing a seat belt. Mr Paparoa was driving his vehicle in a dangerous manner, cutting corners and travelling onto the wrong side of the road. Some of this activity was captured by one of the occupants of the vehicle on her cellphone. At one stage, Mr Paparoa’s vehicle

1 R v Paparoa [2023] NZDC 15509.

was travelling at more than 100 kilometres per hour whilst negotiating a blind corner on the wrong side of the road. He also drove for approximately 500 metres at just under 100 kilometres per hour in a zone that had a posted limit of 50 kilometres per hour.

[7] At around 12.54 am, the…

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 Paparoa v Police

Details

AGLC: Paparoa v Police [2023] NZHC 2978
Case: [2023] NZHC 2978
Decision Date: 25 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal against sentence brought by Ezekiel Nikora Paparoa, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including causing death by dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Paparoa appealed against the two-year-four-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge J C Moses, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to an inadequate discount for his expressed remorse. The appeal required the court to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the mitigating factors presented, particularly the level of remorse demonstrated by Paparoa.

The court examined the circumstances of the offending, which involved reckless driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to three others. The court also considered the mitigating factors, including Paparoa’s expressions of remorse and his efforts to address issues related to his offending. The court noted that while Paparoa had expressed remorse, his actions, such as failing to attend pre-sentence interviews and discrepancies in his statements, raised questions about the genuineness and depth of his remorse. The court had to weigh these factors against the gravity of the offending to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that while another judge might have applied a slightly greater discount for remorse, the end sentence of two years four months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offending, including the sustained reckless driving, the consumption of alcohol and drugs, and the catastrophic consequences for the victims and their families. Given these factors, the court found that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

The court's final orders confirmed the dismissal of the appeal against sentence, upholding the two-year-four-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders