Patangata v Police - [2020] NZHC 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2020-416-000002

[2020] NZHC 407

BETWEEN
JORDAN PATANGATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 March 2020

Counsel:

M Terekia for the Appellant C Stuart for the Respondent

Judgment:

5 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Patangata was granted leave to bring this appeal against sentence out of time by France J on 3 February 2020.

[2] Mr Patangata was sentenced on 10 December 2019 in the Gisborne District Court by Judge Cathcart to 17 months imprisonment and disqualified from driving for one year and one day.1

1 Police v Patangata [2019] NZDC 25078.

PATANGATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 407 [5 March 2020]

[3] This was in relation to charges of theft of petrol,2 burglary,3 driving while disqualified (third or subsequent),4 using a document for pecuniary advantage (x10),5 a Bail Act 2000 charge,6 and a charge of failing to stop for an enforcement officer.7

Factual background

[4] The theft occurred on 28 April 2019. Mr Patangata was a passenger of a Mazda motor vehicle in the Palmerston North area. When the driver pulled the vehicle into a Z Energy Station in Palmerston North, he got out and put $30 worth of petrol in the car while the driver went inside to use the bathroom. Mr Patangata then approached the staff and attempted to use his cell phone as a deposit. The staff advised him that they could not accept it and went to uplift a form for him to complete. Mr Patangata then took a Snickers bar and went back to the vehicle. Mr Patangata and his associate left the store without paying for the fuel or the food.

[5] The burglary occurred on 1 May 2019. Mr Patangata and the same associate were again driving in the Palmerston North area in the same vehicle. The vehicle was stopped outside the victim’s address after some engine problems. Mr Patangata got out of the vehicle, went up the driveway and forced entry into a garden shed. His associate attempted to resolve the problems with the vehicle. A witness approached the associate and offered assistance to jump start the vehicle but that was not successful. Mr Patangata exited the garden shed carrying a petrol can and weed eater. He placed the weed eater in the boot and poured the fuel into the vehicle. Mr Patangata and his associate then left the area in the vehicle.

[6] The charges of driving while disqualified and failing to remain stopped for an enforcement officer occurred on 15 October 2019. On that day, at 11:10 pm Mr Patangata was driving a Mitsubishi motor vehicle along Childers Road in

2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d).    Category 2.     Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
3      Section 231(1)(a). Category 3. Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4). Category 3. Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or $6,000…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Patangata v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZHC 407
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Jordan Patangata against his sentence was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Gisborne Registry. Patangata challenged the sentence of 17 months imprisonment and a one-year and one-day disqualification from driving, which was imposed by the Gisborne District Court. The appellant's main arguments were that the starting point of 17 months' imprisonment for the first category of dishonesty offences was excessive and that he should have been granted leave to apply for home detention. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate and whether the discretion to grant leave to apply for home detention was properly exercised.

The court found that the starting point for the burglary, when compared to similar cases, was appropriate, and the uplift for the remaining offences was justified. The court held that any reduction in the sentence would amount to mere tinkering. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no discernible error in the part of the sentence concerning the starting point. Regarding the leave to apply for home detention, the court found that the Judge was justified in exercising his discretion to refuse to grant leave to apply for home detention due to the appellant's previous convictions and sentences, and the lack of a suitable address. The Judge had canvassed all relevant matters in his decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 17 months' imprisonment and one year and one day disqualification from driving was upheld.

Orders