Peita v Police - [2025] NZHC 1355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000080

[2025] NZHC 1355

BETWEEN
RATAHI CHOPPER PEITA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 26 May 2025

Counsel:

PJM Osborne for Appellant MW Büdler for Respondent

Judgment:

28 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. PJM Osborne, Auckland.

PEITA v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1355 [28 May 2025]

The appeal

[1] This sentence appeal raises a narrow issue concerning uplifts and totality. Ratahi Peita received a sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment for:

(a)Injuring with intent to injure;1

(b)Burglary;2

(c) Theft (over $1,000) (x 2);3

(d)Behaves threateningly;4

(e)Wilful damage;5 and

(f)Breaching release conditions (x 3).6

[2] Judge G A Fraser adopted a global starting point of 55 months’ imprisonment,7 which he adjusted to 48 months in recognition of totality. The Judge then discounted that figure for Mr Peita’s guilty pleas and personal circumstances but uplifted the sentence because of Mr Peita’s extensive criminal history, and the fact of offending while on bail and parole.8

[3] Mr Peita contends the global starting point should have been not more than 50 months, less 12 months for totality. The difference concerns the dishonesty offending. Whereas the Judge added a total of 22 months for it (10 months for the burglary, and 12 months for the thefts), Mr Peita contends the uplift should have been

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or fine not exceeding $2,000.
5      Summary Offences Act, s 11(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or fine not exceeding $2,000.
6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1); maximum penalty one year imprisonment or fine not exceeding
$2,000.
7      There is a minor mathematical error; the global starting point ought to have been 56 months. But as will be apparent, and especially given the adjustment for totality, nothing turns on this.
8      Police v Peita [2025] NZDC 1200.

not more than 17 months (8 months for the burglary, and 9 months for the thefts). This approach, with the balance of the Judge’s methodology, would have left open the possibility of leave for home detention. Therein lies the gist of the appeal.

[4] The appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.9 The ultimate concern is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive, not how it was reached.10

Background

[5]Most of the facts are captured by the Judge’s sentencing remarks:

[4] ... You and the victim were in an intimate relationship for an unknown period. You were released from prison on 16 August, three days before this incident. The victim had allowed you to reside at her…

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 Peita 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: [2025] NZHC 1355
Decision Date: 28 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal arises from the sentencing of Ratahi Peita for multiple offences, including injuring with intent, burglary, theft, threatening behaviour, wilful damage, and breaching release conditions. Peita was sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment by Judge G A Fraser, who adopted a global starting point of 55 months’ imprisonment, adjusted to 48 months due to considerations of totality. The sentence was further uplifted due to Peita's criminal history and the fact that he reoffended while on bail and parole. Peita appeals the sentence, arguing that the global starting point should have been lower, and the uplifts applied were excessive.

The legal issue at the heart of this appeal is whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the appropriate uplifts and totality adjustments. The court must determine if there was an error in the sentence and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The ultimate concern is the excessiveness of the sentence, not the process through which it was reached.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the global starting point was appropriately determined, considering the nature and gravity of the offences. The court noted that the cases cited by Peita did not imply an error in the Judge's approach. The court also found that the cases cited by the respondent, which applied similar starting points, were consistent with the Judge's methodology. The court emphasised that the primary concern was the outcome of the sentence, not the process. The court held that the totality adjustment of seven months was meaningful and appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offending overall.

The appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence stands. The court found no basis to alter the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders