Pui v Police - [2021] NZHC 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-141

[2021] NZHC 352

BETWEEN
LEON DAVID TEKAHA RATAHI PUI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 February 2021

Appearances:

J W Howell for Appellant E F Collis for Respondent

Judgment:

3 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 March 2021 at 2:30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Adams Law, Tauranga Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

PUI v POLICE [2021] NZHC 352 [3 March 2021]

[1] On 3 November 2020, Judge Harding in the District Court at Tauranga1 sentenced Mr Leon Pui (the appellant) to concurrent terms of 23 months’ imprisonment on one charge each of aggravated injury and assault of police constables2, and a further concurrent term of six months’ imprisonment on a single charge of escaping lawful custody.3

[2] The aggravated assaults were second-strike offences and the appellant will accordingly serve the full term of his sentence on those charges without the possibility of parole.4

[3] The appellant now appeals against the sentence imposed saying that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high, resulting in the end sentence being manifestly excessive. He submits that an end sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment ought to have resulted.

Offending

[4] The Police summary of facts notes that the appellant is a patched member of the Bay of Plenty Mongrel Mob. At about 3.00 am on 22 March 2020, the appellant was gathered with other members of his gang on The Strand in Tauranga. He had been drinking alcohol and was “moderately intoxicated”.

[5] One of his gang associates had been arrested and handcuffed by Police for disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence.

[6] The appellant made several attempts to intervene in the arrest of his associate by becoming verbally aggressive and trying to prevent the constables from putting the arrested man in their vehicle. Police warned the appellant several times that he would be arrested if he did not desist.

[7] When a constable stepped between the appellant and the officer arresting the gang associate, the appellant began repeatedly punching the police constable around

1      New Zealand Police v Pui [2020] NZDC 22757.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 191(1)(b) and s 191(2). Maximum 7 years and 3 years imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 120 (c). Maximum 5 years imprisonment.
4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86C(4)(a).

the head, hitting him at least eight times and forcing him to the ground. When on the ground, the constable attempted to take hold of the appellant’s leg, and the appellant kicked the constable on the body. The constable then drew his taser, and the appellant fled.

[8] Another constable chased him, and the appellant turned and swung a punch at him narrowly missing his head.5 The pursuing constable then used his taser, to subdue the appellant, and he was arrested and taken into custody.

[9] The first constable who the appellant had punched in the head, forced…

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 Pui v Police

Details

AGLC: Pui v Police [2021] NZHC 352
Case: [2021] NZHC 352
Decision Date: 3 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leon Pui appeals against his sentence for aggravated injury and assault of police constables, and escaping lawful custody. The appellant submits that the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high, resulting in the end sentence being manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the starting point adopted by the Judge was appropriate and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the relevant sentencing principles and the facts of the case, including the appellant's history of violence and his attack on police officers. The court found that the starting point adopted by the Judge was appropriate and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the District Court is upheld.

Orders