Legal Research
Cases
Popata v The King

Popata v The King

Case [2025] NZCA 372 30 July 2025

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA725/2024
[2025] NZCA 372

BETWEEN	JAYDEN POPATA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	18 June 2025
Court:	Ellis, Peters, Walker JJ
Counsel:	A S Bloem and K R Russell for the Appellant S M Murphy for the Respondent
Judgment:	30 July 2025 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

BThe sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment is set aside and a sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Walker J)

Introduction

Mr Popata appeals his sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge E M Thomas in the District Court at Auckland.[1] Sentencing followed Mr Popata’s guilty pleas to charges of aggravated robbery,[2] wounding with intent to injure,[3] escapes lawful custody,[4] and common assault.[5]
[1]R v Popata [2024] NZDC 24627 [sentencing notes].
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c).
[3]Section 188(2).
[4]Section 120(1)(c).
[5]Section 196.
He contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive for two reasons. Firstly, he says that the Judge imposed an excessive uplift for his prior history and offending while serving a sentence of intensive supervision. Secondly, he says that the Judge failed to adequately account for the impact of personal background factors under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).

The offending

The charges arose from three separate incidents, as summarised in the sentencing notes.[6]
[6]Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [2]–[7].
In the early hours of 16 September 2023, Mr Popata and seven associates arrived at the Wapiti Sports Bar in two stolen vehicles. They entered as a group. Mr Popata was armed with a rifle. The other members of the group had pistols, knives and a crowbar. Bar staff were present, cashing up and closing for the night.
The group smashed their way through the wooden and glass door securing the bar area. Members of the group then began loading up the two stolen vehicles with bottles of alcohol.
Mr Popata and one of his associates demanded that a female staff member open the safe. The safe required a fingerprint entry which she did while the associate pointed a pistol to her head. It took time to open the safe. As Mr Popata waited, one of his associates told her to hurry up and that he would shoot her. Once the safe was open, Mr Popata and his group fled with $38,000 in cash, plus the alcohol stolen from behind the bar. The offending resulted in the charge of aggravated robbery.
Mr Popata was a remand prisoner on 1 December 2023 when he cornered another inmate. Mr Popata and the other inmate were rival gang members. Another person knocked the victim to the ground. While on the ground, Mr Popata stabbed the victim repeatedly with an improvised weapon until they were able to escape. The victim survived and was admitted to hospital. This incident led to the charge…

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 Popata v The King

Details

AGLC: Popata v The King [2025] NZCA 372
Case: [2025] NZCA 372
Decision Date: 30 July 2025 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jayden Popata appeals against his sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge E M Thomas in the District Court at Auckland. The appeal pertains to Mr Popata's guilty pleas to charges of aggravated robbery, wounding with intent to injure, escaping lawful custody, and common assault. Mr Popata contends that the sentence is excessively high for two reasons. Firstly, he argues that the Judge imposed an excessive uplift for his prior criminal history and the fact that he offended while serving a sentence of intensive supervision. Secondly, he argues that the Judge did not adequately account for the impact of personal background factors under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, found that the combined uplift of 14 months for previous history and offending while on sentence was disproportionate. The Court considered that an uplift of five months for past offending and one month for offending while on sentence was appropriate, resulting in a total uplift of six months. The Court further found that the six per cent allowance for background factors was appropriate. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal set aside the original sentence and substituted a sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentences for the wounding charge and other charges remained in accordance with the Judge’s original sentence.

Orders