Puata v Police - [2016] NZHC 1323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-470-000006 [2016] NZHC 1323

BETWEEN
DAVID RANGIKAIAMOKURA PUATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:
14 June 2016

(Heard at Rotorua)

Appearances:

V T Winiata for Appellant
S J P Davison for Respondent

Judgment:

17 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

This judgment is delivered by me on 17 June 2016 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
V H Winiata, Barrister, Tauranga
Hollister-Jones Lellman, Tauranga

PUATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1323 [17 June 2016]

[1] Mr Puata pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one charge of male assaults female on 1 October 2015 and two charges of breaching a sentence of supervision by failing to attend a living without violence programme as directed by his probation officer on 11 and 18 May 2016.

[2] On 28 January 2016, Judge Coyle sentenced Mr Puata in the District Court at

Tauranga to an effective end sentence for these three charges of 11 months’

imprisonment.1 This sentence was arrived at as follows:

Starting point on lead offence - nine months’ imprisonment

Uplift for prior convictions - three months’ imprisonment

Discount for guilty plea - two months’ imprisonment

End sentence on lead offence - 10 months’ imprisonment

Starting point for lesser offences

-

six weeks’ imprisonment

Discount for guilty plea - two weeks’ imprisonment

End sentence on lesser offences - one month imprisonment

Effective end sentence (cumulative)

-

11 months’ imprisonment

[3] Mr Puata appeals against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive as a result of the following errors:

(a) The starting point for the lead offence of male assaults female of nine

months’ imprisonment was too high.

(b)The uplift of three months’ imprisonment for prior offending, which attracted a sentence of 80 hours’ community work and supervision, was too high.

(c) Discounts ought to have been allowed for personal mitigating factors

including Mr Puata’s comparative youth and disadvantaged

background.

1 New Zealand Police v Puata [2016] NZDC 1329.

(d)A 25 per cent discount should have been allowed for the guilty plea, rather than the 18 per cent allowed.

(e) The starting point adopted for the breaches of supervision was too high.

Was the starting point on the lead offence too high?

[4] The summary of facts to which Mr Puata pleaded guilty describe the offending in the following way:

CIRCUMSTANCES

At about 6.25 pm on Thursday 1 October 2015 the defendant PUATA was at his home address on Ross Road Whakamarama. He was with his sister, who is the victim in this matter and two associates. Also in the house were three children under the age of five.

An argument developed between the defendant and victim, when he was asked to leave because of his behaviour. During the argument the defendant has pushed the victim multiple times, hard enough for her to stumble backwards.

When others have attempted to intervene, the defendant has struck 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.

Continue reading Puata v Police

Details

AGLC: Puata v Police [2016] NZHC 1323
Case: [2016] NZHC 1323
Decision Date: 17 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, David Rangikaiamokura Puata appeals his sentence on three charges, arguing it was manifestly excessive. Puata was convicted of one count of male assaults female, and two counts of breaching a sentence of supervision. The District Court sentenced Puata to an effective end sentence of 11 months' imprisonment. Puata contends that the starting point for the lead offence was too high, the uplift for prior convictions was excessive, personal mitigating factors were not considered, the discount for the guilty plea was inadequate, and the starting point for the breaches of supervision was too high.

The court considered that the starting point of nine months' imprisonment was excessive compared to other cases with less serious assaults and minor injuries. The court agreed with the submission that a starting point of six months' imprisonment should have been applied. The uplift of three months for prior offending was considered disproportionate, and the court accepted that a one-month uplift would have been sufficient. The court also found that the Judge was not correct in stating that Puata had failed to engage with the probation service, and that a discount for personal mitigating factors and comparative youth should have been allowed. The court concluded that the Judge was incorrect in stating that Puata's guilty plea was not entered at the earliest opportunity, and that Puata was entitled to a 25 per cent discount for his early guilty plea. The court found that the Judge overstated the seriousness of the breaches of supervision, and that a starting point no higher than one month imprisonment could be justified.

The sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, and the effective end sentence of 11 months' imprisonment should be set aside and replaced with an effective end sentence of five and a half months' imprisonment on all charges. The sentence of 10 months' imprisonment on the charge of male assaults female is set aside and replaced with a sentence of five months' imprisonment. The sentence of four weeks' imprisonment on the charges of breaching supervision are set aside and replaced with a sentence of two weeks' imprisonment. The special conditions imposed in the District Court will remain.

Orders