Pukepuke v Police - [2014] NZHC 1194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-20 [2014] NZHC 1194

BETWEEN
DANE PUKEPUKE

Appellant

AND

POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 30 May 2014

Appearances:

R Vigor-Brown for Appellant
N Tehana for Respondent

Judgment:

30 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J

Solicitors:
R Vigor-Brown, Rotorua
Gordon Pilditch, Crown Solicitors, Rotorua

PUKEPUKE v POLICE [2014] NZHC 1194 [30 May 2014]

[1] The appellant Dane Mark Pukepuke appeals against sentences imposed on him by Judge Weir in the District Court at Rotorua on 28 April 2014.1

[2] The appellant had pleaded guilty to two charges of male assaults female and one charge of breaching a protection order. The Judge convicted him and sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment on the assaults, terms that were to be served concurrently, and a further three months to be served cumulatively in respect of the offence of breaching the protection order.

[3] The Judge fixed the starting point for the two assaults at nine months’ imprisonment. In doing so he specifically said that he was dealing with him on a “totality basis”. He uplifted the starting point by three months so that it reflected both charges, and also the appellant’s previous history of offending. He then reduced the sentence by three months to acknowledge the guilty pleas, although the plea of guilty was clearly not made at the first available opportunity on the assault charges.

[4] The Judge treated the breach of protection order separately. He took a starting point of four months’ imprisonment, which he again reduced, to three months to acknowledge the guilty plea. He directed that the sentence be served cumulatively.

[5] Consequently, there was an effective term of imprisonment for all three charges of 12 months.

[6] The Judge noted that there were a number of concerning facts about the offending, as disclosed in the summary of facts. In his sentencing remarks he highlighted that there were two quite separate events giving rise to the charges of male assaults female that occurred respectively on 13 October and 12 December
2013.

[7] It seems to me that these observations by the Judge were well justified by the summaries of facts before him.

1 New Zealand Police v Pukepuke DC Rotorua CRI-2014-063-000019, 28 April 2014.

[8] On Sunday 13 October the appellant and the victim had organised a gathering for his birthday at their home. When the appellant woke up that day he swore at the victim and told her to get up and cook for everyone (expletives deleted). He pulled the blankets off her then lunged towards her and punched her once in the head above the left eye. She left the house and crawled underneath the deck hiding there until the police arrived. She received a large haematoma on her forehead above her left eye as a result of that incident.

[9] Next, on Thursday 12 December, the appellant and the victim were at home together. A verbal argument developed as a result of which she left. Shortly afterwards the appellant located…

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 Pukepuke v Police

Details

AGLC: Pukepuke v Police [2014] NZHC 1194
Case: [2014] NZHC 1194
Decision Date: 30 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pukepuke v Police, the appellant Dane Mark Pukepuke appealed against the sentences imposed on him by the District Court at Rotorua. The appellant had pleaded guilty to two charges of male assaults female and one charge of breaching a protection order. The District Court Judge convicted him and sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment on the assaults, terms to be served concurrently, and a further three months to be served cumulatively in respect of the offence of breaching the protection order. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the appropriateness of the cumulative sentence imposed for the breach of the protection order and the overall excessiveness of the sentence. The court had to consider whether the Judge's decision to impose cumulative sentences for different kinds of offences was justified and if the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the cumulative sentence for the breach of the protection order was justified because the offences were different in kind. The court also considered the totality of the sentence, taking into account the starting points for each offence, the reduction for the guilty pleas, and the appellant's history of offending. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences imposed by the District Court at Rotorua were upheld.

Orders