Peeni v Police - [2025] NZHC 747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000638

[2025] NZHC 747

BETWEEN
RICHARD JERMAINE PEENI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 March 2025

Counsel:

JIC Schlebusch for Appellant FI Ganchi for Respondent

Judgment:

2 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 2 April 2025 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. JIC Schlebusch, Puhoi.

PEENI v POLICE [2025] NZHC 747 [2 April 2025]

The appeal

[1] On 15 October 2024, Richard Peeni was sentenced to a term of three years’ imprisonment for a raft of offences, including burglary. Mr Peeni appeals. He argues the sentence is too severe, or as the law puts it, manifestly excessive.1

[2] The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different one should be imposed.2

[3] Unfortunately, the record is incomplete. The sentencing Judge’s remarks are unavailable because of a recording error; the respondent has less information than it normally would (for reasons that remain unclear); and Mr Schlebusch has encountered difficulty in obtaining relevant material beyond the sentencing remarks. However, the lawyer who appeared for Mr Peeni at sentencing — not Mr Schlebusch — kept a record of the Judge’s core methodology — starting points, discounts, uplifts — so that at least is known.

Background

[4] The offending occurred across five incidents on 2 August 2023, 12 October 2023, 30 October 2023, 1 November 2023 and 5 May 2024.3 I adopt the summary helpfully provided by the respondent:4

First set of offending – 2 August 2023

2.3At 6:50 pm on 2 August 2023, Mr Peeni was observed driving a vehicle suspected to be stolen, and was stopped by police. When police requested a copy of his licence Mr Peeni fled, driving above the posted speed limit, overtaking vehicles using the median strip, and cutting vehicles off.

2.4Eventually he turned into a driveway and came to a stop. Police approached and attempted to place Mr Peeni under arrest. He actively resisted, pulling away from police and holding his arms in tightly to his torso. Once in handcuffs he continued to resist by thrashing his body around. Following this, a blood sample was taken from Mr Peeni.

1      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      A minor discrepancy exists in relation to the date of the last incident: the criminal and traffic history records 5 May 2024, whereas the summary of facts records 6 May 2024. I have adopted the former.
4      Footnotes omitted.

Results revealed a qualifying prohibited substance, namely methamphetamine.

2.5For this offending Mr Peeni pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle recklessly, resisting police, and driving with a qualified drug in his blood as a third or subsequent offence.

Second set of offending – 12 October 2023

2.6On 12 October 2023, Mr Peeni was observed driving a vehicle with a smashed…

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 Peeni v Police

Details

AGLC: Peeni v Police [2025] NZHC 747
Case: [2025] NZHC 747
Decision Date: 2 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Richard Peeni against his three-year imprisonment sentence for multiple offences, including burglary. Peeni argued the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on whether there was an error in the sentence that warranted a different penalty. The court faced difficulties due to an incomplete record, but it was established that the sentencing Judge had adopted a global starting point, applied discounts and uplifts, resulting in the final sentence. The offending occurred across five separate incidents, involving reckless driving, resisting arrest, drug possession, burglary, unlawful entry, and vehicle theft. The lawyer who represented Peeni at sentencing documented the Judge’s methodology, including the starting point, discounts, and uplifts.

The court considered whether the global starting point, the discount for personal circumstances, and the uplift for aggravating factors were appropriate. The court found that while Peeni’s burglary was serious, it was not as severe as some previous cases. The unlawful taking of the Tesla vehicle warranted a lesser starting point. The uplift for aggravating factors was deemed appropriate, given Peeni’s extensive criminal history and the fact that most of his offending occurred while on bail. The discount for personal circumstances, though warranted by Peeni’s troubled background, was appropriately limited by his high risk of reoffending and history of recidivism.

The court concluded that no error was evident in the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders