Patea v Police - [2025] NZHC 1058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000022 [2025] NZHC 1058

BETWEEN TATUPU JASON PATEA
Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 5 May 2025

Counsel:D N Rawson for Appellant A L Chan for Respondent

Judgment: 5 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service (Auckland) for Appellant Kayes Fletcher Walker (Manukau) for Respondent

PATEA v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1058 [5 May 2025]

[1] Mr Patea appeals his conviction and sentence resulting from him pleading guilty to an offence described in the charging document as “being the driver of a vehicle that was stopped under the Land Transport Act 1998 and having had a lawful demand by an enforcement officer under s 114(3)(B) (sic) of the Act to give your full name and full address you provided false or misleading information, you having, on at least two previous occasions, been convicted of an offence against s 114”. The “legislative reference” was “Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(c), 52A(5), 52A(6) and 114(3)(b)”.

[2] Mr Patea was sentenced by Judge Y Yelavich on 23 February 2024 on this charge and a number of others.1 It is not particularly clear from the sentencing notes what sentences attached to what charges. Ms Chan, for the Crown, submits that there is logic in disregarding some of the words that the Judge used. Ms Chan might well be right. But as I read the sentencing notes, on this charge the Judge sentenced Mr Patea to 18 months’ supervision, 40 hours’ community work and disqualified him from driving for two years. I note, however, that Mr Patea’s official criminal and traffic history does not mention anywhere the sentence of supervision and assigns to the charge of providing false or misleading information a sentence of 40 hours’ community work and two years’ disqualification from driving.

[3] I have said to counsel that this is not a mystery I can unravel on appeal and, in any event, it is not relevant to the outcome I have decided.

[4] Mr Patea needs leave to bring his appeal because he is some 11 months out of time. As I will come to, the prosecutor, Mr Patea, and the Judge were under a misapprehension as to the law which applies to the charge. Accordingly, I extend the time for the filing of the notice of appeal.

[5] I accept, as does the Crown, that the sentence cannot stand. Section 52A legislates a regime of escalating penalties for repeated instances of the offending it creates, including the offence of providing false or misleading information. But this Court has held repeatedly that offending prior to the currency of s 52A (11 August

1 Department of Corrections v Patea [2024] NZDC 32227.

2017) does not count.2 Mr Patea’s two previous convictions are in that category. He should not have been subjected to the s 52A regime as a third time offender. This does not mean that the previous convictions are irrelevant to…

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 Patea v Police

Details

AGLC: Patea v Police [2025] NZHC 1058
Case: [2025] NZHC 1058
Decision Date: 5 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Tatupu Jason Patea appealed his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to charges under the Land Transport Act 1998. Specifically, Mr. Patea was charged with providing false or misleading information to an enforcement officer during a lawful stop, with the charge citing prior convictions for similar offences. The court heard the appeal on May 5, 2025, with counsel D N Rawson representing the appellant and A L Chan representing the Crown. The judgment was delivered on the same day by Brewer J.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the trial judge correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions in sentencing Mr. Patea. The appeal focused on the interpretation and application of Section 52A of the Land Transport Act 1998, which outlines escalating penalties for repeated traffic offences. The court had to determine if Mr. Patea's previous convictions, occurring before the effective date of Section 52A, should have been considered in imposing the sentence. The court also had to address the procedural issue of whether Mr. Patea's appeal was filed within the appropriate time frame, given that it was significantly delayed.

The High Court found that the trial judge had misapplied the law by considering Mr. Patea's prior convictions under Section 52A, which only became effective on August 11, 2017. Since Mr. Patea's previous convictions predated this effective date, they should not have been counted as prior offences for the purposes of escalating penalties. The court decided to quash the original sentence and resentence Mr. Patea under the correct legal framework. Given the length of time that had passed since the original sentencing and the period already served by Mr. Patea, the court opted to convict and discharge him on the charge of providing false or misleading information, without imposing any additional penalties.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against the sentence. The sentence of 40 hours’ community work and two years’ disqualification from driving, as well as any supervision imposed, was quashed. Mr. Patea was convicted and discharged on the charge of providing false or misleading information.

Orders