Poumako v Police - [2021] NZHC 2147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-85

[2021] NZHC 2147

BETWEEN
LAWRENCE TE PIRIHI POUMAKO

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:
17 August 2021

(Heard at HAMILTON)

Appearances:

A MacTavish for Appellant S J Bird for Respondent

Judgment:

18 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 August 2021 at 9.30 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

POUMAKO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2147 [18 August 2021]

[1] Mr Poumako pleaded guilty in the District Court to a large number of charges involving causing intentional damage, burglary, assault with a weapon, driving offences and common assault. On 24 June 2021 Judge G C Hollister-Jones sentenced him to two years two months imprisonment.1 Mr Poumako appeals against sentence on the basis that errors in the sentencing process led to an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The charges

[2] The charges were laid as a result of a series of incidents that occurred on and around the weekend of 29-30 August 2020.

[3] On the morning of 29 August 2020 Mr Poumako stole a Ford Ranger motor vehicle that was parked at an address in Rotorua. He drove in a southerly direction towards Taupo on State Highway 5 in the company of an associate. During that journey he observed a police camera van parked on the side of the road. He immediately accelerated and drove the vehicle directly at the camera van. He swerved at the last minute so that he avoided colliding with the van. Rather than drive away, however, he did a U-turn and then deliberately drove his vehicle so as to cause it to collide with the side of the camera van. The camera operator inside the van was left dazed as a result of the collision. Mr Poumako then accelerated away and undertook a series of dangerous manoeuvres, including overtaking vehicles in the face of oncoming traffic.

[4] A police officer driving a marked patrol car encountered Mr Poumako’s vehicle as it was undertaking these manoeuvres. The officer activated his vehicle’s red and blue flashing lights and endeavoured to stop Mr Poumako’s vehicle. Mr Poumako responded by attempting to reverse the Ford Ranger motor vehicle into the patrol vehicle. He then sped off with the police officer in pursuit. Mr Poumako managed to pull away from the pursuing patrol vehicle as he was driving at speeds in excess of 160 kilometres per hour.

1 New Zealand Police v Poumako [2021] NZDC 12679.

[5] The same police officer subsequently parked his patrol vehicle in Kaingaroa Village. Mr Poumako saw the parked vehicle and drove across a grass verge at speed in order to ram it. The officer managed to avoid the collision by driving away. Mr Poumako then undertook an extensive pursuit of the patrol vehicle, reaching speeds of approximately 130 kilometres per hour whilst travelling a very short distance behind the…

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 Poumako 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: [2021] NZHC 2147
Decision Date: 18 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lawrence Te Pirihi Poumako appealed against his sentence handed down by the Rotorua District Court. The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including causing intentional damage, burglary, assault with a weapon, driving offences, and common assault. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of two years and two months imprisonment. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to errors in the sentencing process.

The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the starting point of the sentence was excessive and whether the discount for the appellant's guilty pleas was appropriate. The court considered the nature of the offending, which involved a series of dangerous driving incidents, burglary, theft, and assault charges. The court also took into account the appellant's mental health issues and deprived upbringing.

The court found that the starting point of the sentence was within the available range, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the deliberate nature of the driving incidents. The court also determined that the discount for the appellant's guilty pleas was within range, even though another judge might have given a greater discount. The court concluded that the end sentence of two years and two months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders