Puhipuhi v Police - [2025] NZHC 1714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-114

[2025] NZHC 1714

ROIMATA PUHIPUHI

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 16 June 2025

Appearances:

B Castelino for the Appellant U B Keller for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 June 2025 at 3.00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………..

ROIMATA PUHIPUHI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1714 [26 June 2025]

[1] The appellant, Roimata Puhipuhi, has appealed a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge G T Winter after she pleaded guilty to five charges of shoplifting goods to the total value of $2803.03 from supermarkets in South Auckland.1

[2]In brief:

(a)On 26 May 2024, Ms Puhipuhi stole $900 worth of items from the Countdown on Averill Street in Papakura (theft ($500–$1,000)).2

(b)On 15 June 2024, Ms Puhipuhi stole items to the value of $1,064 from Countdown Roselands (theft (over $1,000)).3

(c)On 24 June 2024, Ms Puhipuhi stole items to the value of $140 from Countdown Manukau (theft (under $500)).4

(d)On 8 July 2024, Ms Puhipuhi stole items to the value of $400 from the Countdown on Averill Street in Papakura (theft (under $500)).5

(e)On 25 September 2024, Ms Puhipuhi stole items valued at $299.03 from Countdown Roselands (theft (under $500)).6

[3] In each case Ms Puhipuhi adopted a broadly similar modus operandi; after filling a shopping trolley, she simply walked through the self-service area without paying. It is noted that the second theft from the Averill Street Countdown was undertaken after she had been trespassed from the premises. In explanation, Ms Puhipuhi said she stole food because she was hungry and had no money.

[4] The Court must allow a sentence appeal if it is satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence and that a different sentence should have been

1      New Zealand Police v Puhipuhi [2025] NZDC 2095 [Judgment under appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(c). Maximum penalty; one year imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(b). Maximum penalty; seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty; three months’ imprisonment.
5      Sections 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty; three months’ imprisonment.
6      Sections 219 and 223(d). Maximum penalty; three months’ imprisonment.

imposed.7 The Court will intervene where the sentence is manifestly excessive,8 but will not engage in “tinkering”.9 The focus is on whether the sentence is within the appropriate range, rather than the process by which the sentence was reached.10

District Court Decision

[5] After reviewing Ms Puhipuhi’s PAC report, her history of similar offending and the previous sentences received, Judge Winter concluded that the offending was “major shoplifting” which possessed “a degree of premeditation”, and was not carried out “solely to sustain [herself] or others” but rather was:11
organised shoplifting where [she] did get some items for [her] own good health but largely items that [she] could quickly sell to make money.

[6] In reliance…

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 Puhipuhi 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: [2025] NZHC 1714
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roimata Puhipuhi appealed against a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge G T Winter after she pleaded guilty to five charges of shoplifting. Ms Puhipuhi had stolen goods to the total value of $2803.03 from supermarkets in South Auckland. The primary legal issues in the appeal were whether the starting point for the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the Judge Winter had failed to consider all mitigating factors, and whether home detention would have been a more appropriate sentence. Ms Puhipuhi argued that the starting point for the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentence should have been commuted to home detention. The Court held that the starting point for the sentence was well within the range available to the Judge. The Court found that there was no error in the allowances given by the sentencing Judge. It was also found that there was no basis for Ms Puhipuhi to get any allowance for a dependent child. The Court found that an appropriate allowance of approximately one and a quarter months for the time Ms Puhipuhi spent on electronically monitored bail can be used to make up the difference, resulting in the end sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders