Pitihira v Police - [2012] NZHC 1690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-470-000021 [2012] NZHC 1690

JOHN RAWIRI PIRIPI PITIHIRA
Appellant
v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 13 July 2012

Counsel: J Holmes for Appellant
J Rhodes for Respondent

Judgment: 13 July 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

Counsel:
J Holmes for Appellant

PITIHIRA V NZ POLICE HC ROT CRI-2012-470-000021 [13 July 2012]

[1] This is an appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Tauranga on 24 May 2012 in respect of convictions after a guilty plea on a number of charges
– one charge of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, two of theft or shoplifting, one of wilful trespass, one of receiving stolen property and three charges of breach of community work. Fifteen months imprisonment was imposed on the charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. Three months imprisonment was imposed on the charge of receiving. On the charges of theft and breach of community work, the appellant received two months imprisonment. Finally, on the charge of wilful trespass, the appellant was convicted and discharged.

[2] At the outset I note that the criminal record is incorrect, in that it shows that the appellant received sentences of two months imprisonment for both the receiving charge and the charge of wilful trespass. I direct that these be amended to reflect the actual sentences imposed, which were three months imprisonment on the charge of receiving and a conviction and discharge on the charge of wilful trespass.

Facts

[3] The most serious offence was the charge of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. At about 4:50am on Saturday 7 January 2012, the appellant was passing through the Bayfair shopping complex in Mt Maunganui. He had been drinking and was intoxicated at that time. He saw a motor scooter parked outside a shop. He approached the scooter, broke the steering lock and tried to kick-start it but was unsuccessful in doing so. He then decided to push the motor scooter down the road to a relative’s house, where he left the scooter in the carport to pick up at a later date. Reparation of $736.60 was sought for damage that had been done to the scooter.

[4] One of the charges of theft related to the shoplifting of a $20 pair of shoes from the Warehouse, which was recovered. The other charge involved the theft of a
$21 bottle of wine from PAK’nSAVE. The trespass charge was also in respect of PAK’nSAVE. The receiving charge involved the receipt of a pair of jeans from an associate, knowing the jeans to have been stolen, while the three charges of breach of

community work related to the appellant’s failure to report to a probation officer on three successive Fridays.

Pre-sentence report

[5] The pre-sentence report revealed that Mr Pitihira was living in Papamoa with his mother and two sisters prior to his remand in custody. He told the probation officer that he shared a good relationship with his whanau, adding…

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 Pitihira v Police

Details

AGLC: Pitihira v Police [2012] NZHC 1690
Case: [2012] NZHC 1690
Decision Date: 13 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Pitihira v Police concerns an appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court at Tauranga. The appellant, John Rawiri Piripi Pitihira, was convicted on various charges including unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, theft, receiving stolen property, wilful trespass, and breach of community work. The appeal challenges the severity of the 15-month imprisonment sentence imposed on the charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.

The central legal issue was whether the District Court Judge correctly set the starting point for sentencing and applied appropriate discounts for the appellant's early guilty pleas and remorse. The court needed to determine if the 18-month starting point was disproportionate to the gravity of the offences, particularly considering the appellant's previous convictions and the nature of the current offences.

The High Court found that the District Court Judge's starting point of 18 months was too high and not proportionate to the gravity of the offences. The court concluded that a more appropriate starting point would have been 12 months, considering the minor nature of the other offences involved. The court further determined that a 25% discount for the early guilty pleas and remorse was appropriate, leading to a final sentence of 9 months imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced accordingly. The other sentences and orders regarding reparation and post-detention conditions remained unchanged.

Orders