Puata v Police - [2017] NZHC 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-000252 [2017] NZHC 2006

BETWEEN
HINETAI PUATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 August 2017

Appearances:

W M Hite for Appellant
C P Howard for Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Manukau
Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland

PUATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2006 [22 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] Ms Puata appeals the sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment imposed on her by Judge Andrée Wiltens in the Manukau District Court on 26 June 2017. Ms Puata pleaded guilty to 11 charges, ranging from disorderly conduct to possession of methamphetamine.

The offending

[2] Ms Puata’s offending occurred on a number of discrete occasions between

September 2016 and April 2017.

[3] On 28 September 2016, Ms Puata was purchasing lunch from a Pizza Hut store located in the Southmall Shopping Centre in Manurewa. Ms Puata began yelling and swearing inside the store, and abused staff and customers. She was spoken to by the shopping centre’s security personnel. She continued to yell abuse, and knocked down store signs as she exited the store. Ms Puata explained that she was angry at Pizza Hut staff for missing her order. As a result of this incident, Ms Puata was trespassed from the Southmall Shopping Centre for a period of two years, and was informed of the consequences of returning to the shopping centre during this period.

[4] On 10 December 2016, Ms Puata entered the Hunters Inn hotel in Papatoetoe in an intoxicated state. She entered a patron’s room and lay down on the bed, after which she was asked to leave the premises. Ms Puata exited the building. She then threw an object at the building’s windows, breaking four panes and causing approximately $700.00 in damage. Ms Puata says she broke the windows because she was not paid for her services. Ms Puata was arrested and brought to the Police Custody Unit in Manukau. Due to her intoxicated state and aggressive behaviour, the police were unable to process Ms Puata and she was placed in a cell.

[5] Despite repeated efforts to process Ms Puata overnight, she remained uncooperative. The next morning, a police officer entered Ms Puata’s cell with a cup of water and some Panadol. The officer was attempting to complete Ms Puata’s processing. Ms Puata used the cup the officer brought to the cell to obtain water from

the cell’s toilet. She was warned not to throw the water at the officer, but despite this she threw the water and it struck the officer’s face and body. Ms Puata showed no remorse for her actions, mocking the officer the following day. The officer was revolted and disgusted by Ms Puata’s assault, and angered by her continued disrespect.

[6] On 28 December 2016, Ms Puata was in the New World supermarket located in the Southmall Shopping Centre. She was running through the shopping centre and supermarket to evade security personnel. When apprehended…

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 Puata 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: [2017] NZHC 2006
Decision Date: 22 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Puata appealed the sentence of 14 months' imprisonment imposed on her by Judge Andrée Wiltens in the Manukau District Court on 26 June 2017. Ms Puata pleaded guilty to 11 charges, ranging from disorderly conduct to possession of methamphetamine. Ms Puata's offending occurred on a number of occasions between September 2016 and April 2017. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there was an error in the sentence imposed on conviction, and if a different sentence should be imposed. The court considered the imposition of cumulative sentences and the maximum penalty for methamphetamine possession. The court found that the cumulative approach to the methamphetamine-related charges was appropriate, and the six-month starting point was not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentence was in line with that in comparable cases and dismissed the appeal. The final sentence of 14 months' imprisonment, with the Judge's release conditions, should remain.

Orders