Pou Te Rata v Police - [2024] NZHC 821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000010

[2024] NZHC 821

TRIESTE POU TE RATA

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2024

Appearances:

C Taylor for the Appellant

A J Goodwin for the Respondent

Judgment:

23 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Solicitors/Counsel:
C Taylor, Whangarei
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei

POU TE RATA v POLICE [2024] NZHC 821 [23 April 2024]

[1] Mr Pou Te Rata was sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment for nine charges relating to two episodes of partner violence. He appeals that sentence.

Facts of offending

First incident

[2] On the 25 June 2023, Mr Pou Te Rata was at his family home. He was in an angry mood because the victim’s car would not start and he was yelling to tell her to fix the car before he smashes it. He then threatened to smash her face in and kill her. He got angrier picking up a chair and started hitting the bonnet, the boot and car doors with it. He then walked over to the victim and grabbed her by the jacket as she tried to get away from him. He punched her at the back of the head at least twice with a closed fist. He then kicked her to the left side of body causing her to hit a fence about a metre away. When the victim hit the fence, it was the only thing to stop her falling to the ground. She suffered bruising and swelling as a result.

[3] Mr Pou Te Rata breached his release conditions by associating with the victim and he was actively avoiding Police because of another incident where he threatened to kill the victim, assaulted her, and damaged her vehicle.

Second incident

[4] At about 5.30 pm on 9 July 2023, Mr Pou Te Rata was at the address in Rūākaka. Police contacted the victim via phone to check on her welfare. Mr Pou Te Rata stood over the victim listening to the conversation and with a closed fist in her face directed her to say that she was fine and not with him.

[5] Later that night Mr Pou Te Rata became angry and accused the victim of being a nark. He stood over her while she was sitting on a couch with a pair of scissors in her hand and threatened to stab her. The victim was really scared and thought he was going to kill her.

[6] The next morning Mr Pou Te Rata was still angry and when the victim told him they needed to break up, he picked up a wooden table leg and hit her on the lower left

leg hard. A short time later the victim went outside to get washing off the line. Mr Pou Te Rata accused her of calling the police. She told him that he had her phone making him angrier. He picked up the wooden table leg again and hit…

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 Pou Te Rata 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: [2024] NZHC 821
Decision Date: 23 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Trieste Pou Te Rata appealed his 25-month imprisonment sentence for multiple charges related to partner violence. The District Court had adopted a starting point of 24 months for the two assault offences, uplifted by 12 months for other aggravating factors, resulting in a combined starting point of 38 months. This was discounted by 25 per cent for Pou Te Rata’s guilty plea, yielding a final sentence of 25 months. Pou Te Rata argued the starting point was excessive, suggesting a starting point of 18 to 20 months for the lead offences. He also contended that his appalling upbringing warranted a greater discount, potentially up to 20 per cent, rather than the 10 per cent discount granted. The Police opposed the appeal, arguing that the starting point and discounts were appropriate.

The High Court found that the starting point was within range given the seriousness of the offending and the multiple aggravating factors. The Court acknowledged the severity of Pou Te Rata’s childhood deprivation and its impact on his offending, but also noted his history of repeat offending and the need to balance this with the purposes of sentencing. While a 20 per cent discount for childhood deprivation and rehabilitative potential was available, the Court concluded that the final sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal's decision underscores the importance of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, particularly in cases involving repeated family violence and significant childhood deprivation. The Court's analysis highlights the need for a nuanced approach to sentencing that takes into account the full context of the offender's background and the nature of the offending.

Orders