Pirini v Police
[2025] NZHC 1398
•30 May 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE
CRI-2025-488-0035
[2025] NZHC 1398
BETWEEN FREEDOM CHANCE PIRINI
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 19 May 2025 Appearances:
T Luders for the appellant D Soich for the respondent
Judgment:
30 May 2025
JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J
[Appeal against sentence]
This judgment was delivered by me on 30 May 2025 at 2.00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
WRMK Lawyers, WhangāreiMarsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangārei
PIRINI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1398 [30 May 2025]
[1] Mr Pirini appeals against a sentence by Judge A A Couch dated 24 January 2025,1 sentencing him to two years and four months’ imprisonment for two separate sets of driving related offences to which he had pleaded guilty.
The offending
March 2024 offending
[2]The first set of offending occurred on 3 March 2024.
[3] Mr Pirini was driving in an unregistered yellow Suzuki dirt bike. He drove across the bridge at Donald Lane in Kaitaia and headed up Donald Road. Police were immediately behind him and activated red and blue flashing lights and a siren, but he did not stop.
[4] Donald Lane is a residential area with a 50-kilometres-per-hour speed limit. Mr Pirini accelerated to speeds between 60 to 80 kilometres per hour. He headed east towards Oturu, past a local school, and then headed south along Oturu Road.
[5] Approximately two kilometres down Oturu Road, the road changes from tar seal to gravel. Despite the road being gravel and also windy, Mr Pirini continued to drive at approximately 60 to 80 kilometres per hour.
[6] Mr Pirini then turned left onto Clough Road and continued to head south. He came to the end of Clough Road and turned left onto State Highway One in Pamapuria. He accelerated again to approximately 60 to 80 kilometres per hour.
[7] The Police had been following him all this time. He frequently looked back at them.
[8] Mr Pirini drove approximately three kilometres south to the intersection of Takahue Road and the State Highway in Takahue. He then dumped his bike, and ran across the Highway and into farming paddocks towards a stream. The Police pursued him and located him after he jumped into a stream.
1 New Zealand Police v Pirini [2025] NZDC 1485.
[9] Mr Pirini was subsequently charged for the 15th time with driving while disqualified (making it a third or subsequent offence),2 and failing to stop when followed by red/blue flashing lights.3
November 2024 offending
[10]The second set of offending occurred on 11 November 2024.
[11] The Police were on patrol on Jamieson Road in Kaitaia at 11.40 am. Mr Pirini was ahead of them driving a motor vehicle. They followed him due to the speed he was driving at. They followed him all the way to Bank Street, Kaitaia, where he parked.
[12] The Police spoke to him and placed him under arrest as he had a bail condition not to drive any motor vehicle. Also, they did checks on the vehicle which revealed that it was stolen.
[13] Mr Pirini was subsequently charged for the 16th time with driving while disqualified (again, making it a third or subsequent offence), and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle was later substituted with a charge of unlawfully using a motor vehicle.4
District Court decision
[14] The Judge ultimately reached an adjusted starting point of two years and five months’ imprisonment.5 He reached this starting point in the following way:
(a)He adopted a starting point of nine months’ imprisonment for the charge of unlawfully using a motor vehicle.6
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (4). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6000, and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
3 Sections 52A(1)(a)(ii) and (4), and 114(2). Maximum penalty fine not exceeding $10,000, and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for not less than one year and not more than two years.
4 Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5 New Zealand Police v Pirini, above n 1, at [9].
6 At [5].
(b)He adopted a starting point of two years’ imprisonment for the two charges of driving while disqualified, which he uplifted by one month for the charge of failing to stop.7
(c)He added the two starting points together to produce a combined starting point of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment for all the offending.8
(d)He then, as required by s 85 of the Sentencing Act 2002, stood back and considered whether two years and 10 months’ imprisonment was appropriate for the totality of the offending. As he considered there was some overlap between the charges, he reduced the combined starting point to two years and five months’ imprisonment.9
[15] The Judge then turned to personal aggravating factors. He considered that there were three significant factors:
(a)all the offending occurred while Mr Pirini was subject to release conditions forming part of a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in March 2024;10
(b)the November 2024 offending occurred while Mr Pirini was on bail;11 and
(c)Mr Pirini’s criminal history.12
[16]For the first two of these factors, the Judge applied an uplift of 10 per cent.13
[17] In relation to the third factor, the Judge said that he had taken into account Mr Pirini’s previous driving while disqualified offending in selecting the starting
7 At [7]–[8].
8 At [9].
9 At [5] and [8]–[9].
10 At [11].
11 At [11].
12 At [12].
13 At [11].
point. But Mr Pirini has a very extensive history of offending of almost every nature since the age of 17. This includes numerous other traffic offences and unlawful involvement with motor vehicles. For Mr Pirini’s other offending, the Judge applied an uplift of five per cent.14
[18] On the other hand, the Judge reduced the sentence by 25 per cent on account of Mr Pirini’s guilty pleas.15 Also, as Mr Pirini had been on electronically monitored (EM) bail for approximately seven weeks, the sentence was reduced by a further month.16
[19]The result was an end sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.17
Leave to appeal
[20] Mr Pirini’s appeal was filed slightly out of time. This was due to unavailability of counsel. The Police did not oppose leave. I grant leave.
Appeal legal principles
[21] Section 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides that the Court must allow the appeal if satisfied that:
(a)for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction; and
(b)a different sentence should be imposed.
[22] When reviewing a sentence on appeal, it must be shown that the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, or there must be exceptional circumstances.18 The focus is not on the process by which the sentence was reached, but on the correctness of the end result. In making this assessment, the Court does not
14 At [12].
15 At [13].
16 At [14]
17 At [14].
18 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [31], citing Te Aho v R
[2013] NZCA 47 at [30].
interfere with the legitimate exercise of judicial discretion or indulge in mere tinkering with the sentence.19
The appeal
[23]Mr Luders for Mr Pirini argues that:
(a)the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high — he says the starting point should have been 27 months;
(b)the uplift of 15 per cent for personal aggravating factors was excessive; and
(c)there should be a discount of five to 10 per cent for Mr Pirini’s background and personal circumstances.
[24] If the sentence imposed by the Judge is adjusted for these three points, the result is a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. But Mr Luders submits that, having regard to s 16 of the Sentencing Act, it would be appropriate to step back and impose a sentence of nine months’ home detention.
The starting point
[25] Mr Luders contends the Judge should have adopted the starting point as follows. He begins with the first of the two charges of driving while disqualified (Mr Pirini’s 15th such charge). He says this is the lead charge.
[26] Mr Luders argues, based on the decision of Radich J in Pakau v Police,20 that the starting point should be 14 months. Having reviewed several other cases, Radich J considered that the starting point for Mr Pakau’s 18th charge of driving while disqualified should fall in the range from 14 to 18 months.21 Mr Luders submits that the starting point for Mr Pirini’s 15th charge of driving while disqualified should be
19 Ngawati v New Zealand Police [2022] NZHC 2156 at [6].
20 Pakau v Police [2024] NZHC 1884.
21 At [32].
at the bottom end of Radich J’s range of 14 to 18 months for Mr Pakau’s 18th charge. Based on this, he submits that the starting point should be 14 months.
[27] Mr Luders says that the following uplifts should then be applied to the starting point of 14 months:
(a)six months for the second charge of driving while disqualified (Mr Pirini’s 16th such charge);
(b)one month for the charge of failing to stop (as applied by the Judge); and
(c)six months for the charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.
[28]The result is a starting point for all the charges of 27 months’ imprisonment.
[29] I note that the Judge’s adjusted starting point for all the charges was two years and five months (or 29 months) — just two months higher than Mr Luders’s recommended starting point.
[30] Ms Soich for the Crown supports the approach taken by the Judge. She says that the Judge’s starting point of nine months for the charge of unlawfully using a motor vehicle was within the range available to the Judge. She notes that, in Heihei v Police, this Court upheld a starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment on a charge of conversion of a trailer.22 While the present case involves using rather than taking, the vehicle in the present case is much more valuable than the trailer in Heihei.
[31] Ms Soich says that the Judge’s starting point of two years imprisonment for the two charges of driving while disqualified is “stern” but also within range. Like Mr Luders, she relies on Pakau. She notes that Radich J considered that a range of 14 to 18 months for Mr Pakau’s 18th charge, uplifted by four to five months for each of his 15th, 16th and 17th charges, would be appropriate.23 (As discussed above,
22 Heihei v Police [2025] NZHC 589.
23 Pakau v Police, above n 14, at [32]–[34].
Mr Luders takes Mr Pirini’s 15th charge as the lead charge and uplifts for the 16th charge. But, in Pakau, Radich J treated the most recent charge as the lead charge and uplifted for the three earlier charges.)
[32] I take a different approach to the Judge (and Mr Luders and Ms Soich), but I reach the same result as him. My approach is to select starting points for each of the two sets of charges, bring them together to reach a combined starting point for both sets of offending, and then adjust for the totality principle.
[33] For the first set of charges, my starting point is 16 months. This is calculated as 15 months for the charge of driving while disqualified, uplifted by one month for the charge of failing to stop. For the second set of charges, my starting point is 19 months. This is 15 months for the second charge of driving while disqualified, uplifted by four months for the charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. (Normally a charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle would be the lead charge, but this is Mr Pirini’s 16th charge of driving while disqualified.) Thus, my combined starting point is 35 months. I then reduce my combined starting point by six months for the totality principle, giving me the same 29-month adjusted starting point as the Judge.
Uplifts for personal aggravating factors
[34] As I have said, the Judge applied uplifts totalling 15 per cent for Mr Pirini’s personal aggravating factors. Mr Luders submits that this was excessive. But I cannot see why the Judge was wrong to apply these uplifts.
Reduction for background and personal circumstances
[35] As I have said, Mr Luders argues there should be a deduction of five to 10 per cent for Mr Pirini’s background and personal circumstances. He relies on the pre- sentence reports and letters of support from Mr Pirini’s EM bail sponsors, Corey and Sheena Petera. The Peteras are leading figures in Iwi Tapu, a church Mr Pirini has been attending. The church is part of or affiliated with Destiny Church.
[36] There are two pre-sentence reports dated 16 October 2024 and 13 January 2025. The first report records the following regarding Mr Pirini’s background and personal circumstances:
(a)There was some violence between his parents while growing up, but it never occurred in front of him or his siblings. He therefore considers himself to have had a “pretty good upbringing”.
(b)In the past, methamphetamine has been a “demon in his lifestyle and pattern of offending.” Mr Pirini reported to have started using methamphetamine when he moved to Auckland in 2002.
(c)Mr Pirini has been in a relationship with his partner for approximately 24 years. They have six children together. His partner has given him an ultimatum following his last conviction. She has told him to sort himself out or the relationship is over. Mr Pirini spoke to the report writer with great admiration about what his partner has achieved with her own rehabilitation and the subsequent positive changes within her and their children’s lives. He expressed that he has been motivated to follow her lead in attending programmes and church every week.
(d)Mr Pirini is making attempts to disassociate himself with his offending- supportive associates and address his drug use. He completed a random drug and alcohol test in August 2024. He tested positive for cannabis but negative for methamphetamine and alcohol.
(e)He has recently been attending the Destiny Church Man Up programme regularly. But, in recent weeks, he has ceased his engagement with the programme.
[37] The second report said that, at sentencing on 31 October 2024, Mr Pirini was remanded at large to complete the Rakau Ora programme (and find a suitable address for EM monitoring). But, unfortunately, he was charged with the November 2024 offending and remanded in custody.
[38] The letters from the Peteras are dated 24 November 2024. The first is a letter from Iwi Tapu. The letter expresses wholehearted support for Mr Pirini. It says that he has become an integral part of the church community. It says that Mr Pirini’s early life was marked by significant challenges. He grew up in an environment rife with alcohol, drugs and abuse. He was trapped in a cycle of generational trauma that left him with few positive role models or opportunities for a better life. The letter says that, despite these formidable obstacles, Mr Pirini has shown a change in attitude and motivation for change in his lifestyle.
[39] The second letter is from Mr Petera in his capacity as director of the Man Up programme in the Far North. He writes “to formally endorse [Mr] Pirini’s participation in” the Man Up programme. The 10-week programme is said to empower men to “rise up and take their rightful place as leaders within their families and communities.” I note that this letter post-dates the pre-sentence report dated 16 October 2024 that suggests that Mr Pirini is no longer taking part in the Man Up programme. It therefore casts doubt on that suggestion.
[40] Mr Luders suggests that the reports and letters evidence that Mr Pirini has had an “incredibly deprived and traumatic upbringing” and, before he went back to prison, for the first time in his adult life, he was in a stable place with strong support from his church, rehabilitation (ACC counselling and Man Up) and employment.
[41] Ms Soich submits that there should be no reduction for Mr Pirini’s background and personal circumstances. She said that there is no causal nexus between his background and personal circumstances and the offending. In relation to the two letters from Iwi Tapu and Man Up, she says that the information provided is very general. No details have been provided about the nature of the support provided.
[42] I agree that the evidence is insufficient to justify a reduction for this factor. As I have said, Mr Pirini told the pre-sentence report writer that he had a “pretty good upbringing.” I have set out above the information about his upbring and background in the Iwi Tapu letter. It is generic. No specific details are provided in the letter or any of the other material before the Court. The information about the programmes
that he has been involved in is also insufficiently detailed. I do not have any sense of what the programmes consist of and what Mr Pirini’s involvement was in them.
[43] A reduction for Mr Pirini’s background and personal circumstances is not justified on the evidence before the Court.
Result
[44]The appeal is dismissed.
Blanchard J
0
5
0