Pohoiwi v Police - [2025] NZHC 1915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000191

[2025] NZHC 1915

BETWEEN
RANGIMAREA POHOIWI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 July 2025

Appearances:

J Schlebusch for Appellant A L Stuart for Respondent

Judgment:

14 July 2025

Reissued:

2 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF MOUNT J

Appeal Against Sentence

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 July 2025 at 12.30 pm,
………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell

POHOIWI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1915

Introduction

[1] In July 2024 the appellant Rangimarea Pohoiwi breached a protection order by threatening violence against his partner. This was his tenth breach of a protection order and Judge C M Ryan concluded there was no other option but to sentence him to imprisonment. She sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment and declined to impose home detention.1

[2] Mr Pohoiwi appeals on the ground that the Judge should have imposed home detention.

Background

[3]Mr Pohoiwi is 59 years old and is of Ngāti Porou descent.

[4] Mr Pohoiwi told Corrections his name has been recorded incorrectly throughout his interactions with the justice system over many decades, and the correct spelling of his name is Rangimarea Pohoiwi. That is how I will refer to him in this judgment.

[5] A ”Provision of Advice to Courts” or PAC report says Mr Pohoiwi’s early life was fraught with violence and severe abuse by family and other caregivers responsible for his safety. He was neglected and exposed to anti-social behaviour and substance abuse. Like so many young men in similar positions, his life followed a pathway into gang membership and imprisonment. The report states that Mr Pohoiwi remains easily triggered by factors relating to his childhood trauma.

[6] The report says Mr Pohoiwi places a very high value on the importance of his immediate whānau and has a strong motivation to make a better life for himself and his children. He has immense pride in their success with parenting his sons in a way that has mostly sheltered them from harm and the negative elements of his lifestyle. He appears to be doing his best to break the inter-generational cycle of abuse that has dominated his own life. That is to be commended and encouraged.

1 Police v Pouhiwi [2025] NZDC 8665

[7] On Friday 12 July 2024 at approximately 8 am, Mr Pohoiwi and his partner got into an argument at home. He became increasingly aggressive towards her and threatened her, shouting “I will drag you into the garage and bash you.”

[8] The victim left the house to get away from Mr Pohoiwi. He followed her and continued threatening to drag her into the garage and assault her. Neighbours called the police.

[9] The victim was not the one to call the police, and she did not provide a victim impact statement. She did however support bail for her husband and participate in a restorative justice conference earlier this year. Mr Pohoiwi apologised 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pohoiwi 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 1915
Decision Date: 14 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rangimarea Pohoiwi, was convicted of breaching a protection order by threatening violence against his partner and was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment by Judge C M Ryan. He appeals against that sentence, arguing that home detention should have been imposed instead. The appeal raises the issue of whether the trial judge erred in her decision to impose a custodial sentence over home detention, considering the appellant’s extensive history of violence, including multiple breaches of protection orders and other violent offences, and his participation in rehabilitation programs.

The court examined the appellant's extensive criminal history, which includes 162 prior convictions, numerous violent offences, and 10 previous breaches of protection orders. Despite his efforts to engage in rehabilitation programs, the appellant continued to reoffend, indicating that previous attempts at therapeutic sentencing had not been effective in preventing further offending. The court noted that while the appellant had shown some positive steps towards rehabilitation, the repeated breaches of protection orders and ongoing family violence incidents demonstrated a persistent risk to the community and his partner.

In assessing whether to commute the sentence to home detention, the court considered the statutory purposes and principles of sentencing. The judge concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary for deterrence and to protect the community and the victim, despite acknowledging the potential benefits of a rehabilitative community-based sentence. The court found that the judge had appropriately weighed the factors for and against home detention and exercised her judgment in line with the statutory requirements. The appeal was therefore dismissed, upholding the trial judge's decision.

Orders