Pukeroa v The King - [2023] NZHC 2952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2023-463-79

[2023] NZHC 2952

BETWEEN
TROY PUKEROA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2023

Appearances:

N Dutch for Appellant

M Tutton-Harris for Respondent

Judgment:

20 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 20 October 2023 at 3.30 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Pollett Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga N Dutch, Tauranga

PUKEROA v R [2023] NZHC 2952 [20 October 2023]

[1] Mr Pukeroa pleaded guilty in the District Court to a variety of driving and drug offences. On 28 June 2023, Judge J P Geoghegan sentenced Mr Pukeroa to three years one month imprisonment.1 He also disqualified Mr Pukeroa from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for two years.

[2] Mr Pukeroa appeals against the sentence of imprisonment. He contends the Judge failed to apply totality principles and to give him sufficient credit for mitigating factors. He says these errors produced an end sentence that is manifestly excessive.

The offending

[3] The charges related to a series of incidents that occurred on 29 December 2022 and during February and March 2023.

The incident on 29 December 2022

[4] On the afternoon of 29 December 2022, Mr Pukeroa was driving a Ford Ranger utility motor vehicle in an easterly direction on State Highway 30 between Rotorua and Lake Rotoiti. As he approached a sweeping left-hand bend, his vehicle was the third vehicle from the front in a line of traffic. As the line of vehicles entered a passing lane, the vehicle in front of Mr Pukeroa’s vehicle moved into the right-hand lane to begin overtaking the vehicle at the front of the line. At this time Mr Pukeroa sped up and began “tailgating” the vehicle in front of him. Mr Pukeroa’s vehicle also crossed the double yellow lines and intruded into the oncoming lane. This occurred as the vehicles were travelling around a corner. The vehicle in front of Mr Pukeroa’s vehicle returned to the left-hand lane as soon as possible and Mr Pukeroa accelerated away in his vehicle.

[5] A short time later, Mr Pukeroa entered a series of corners for which the recommended speed limit was 45 kilometres per hour. As his vehicle travelled through one of the corners it crossed into the opposing lane. An oncoming vehicle attempted to take evasive action but Mr Pukeroa’s vehicle collided with it on the front left-hand side. The force of the collision rotated the oncoming vehicle into the path of Mr Pukeroa’s vehicle and a second collision occurred. The collision resulted in the

1 R v Pukeroa [2023] NZDC 13450.

three elderly adult victims in the other vehicle receiving serious injuries. These required them to be transported to hospital by ambulance and helicopter.

[6] The driver of the oncoming vehicle suffered a broken right leg, broken right arm, fractured sternum and numerous fractured ribs. The passenger in 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 Pukeroa v The King

Details

AGLC: Pukeroa v The King [2023] NZHC 2952
Case: [2023] NZHC 2952
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Justice Lang heard an appeal against sentence brought by Troy Pukeroa, who had pleaded guilty to multiple driving and drug offences. The appeal focused on the three-year-one-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Geoghegan, which Pukeroa argued was manifestly excessive due to the Judge's alleged failure to properly apply totality principles and to give sufficient credit for mitigating factors.

The court examined whether the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of Pukeroa's overall offending. The offending involved dangerous driving under the influence of methamphetamine, resulting in serious injuries to three elderly victims. Additionally, Pukeroa was found to be involved in the sale of methamphetamine. The Judge had considered the driving charges as the most serious and applied a starting point of two and a half years for these charges. For the drug-related charges, the Judge also applied a starting point of two and a half years. After applying discounts for guilty pleas and mitigating factors, the Judge arrived at a sentence of three years one month imprisonment.

Justice Lang found that the Judge's approach to sentencing was consistent with the principles of totality and did not result in a manifestly disproportionate sentence. The court noted that the Judge had considered the totality of Pukeroa's offending and had appropriately balanced the seriousness of the driving charges with the drug-related offences. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed on the basis of totality, but the court identified a mathematical error in calculating the discount for mitigating factors. The Judge had intended to reduce the sentence by two years to reflect the 45% discount, but the actual reduction should have been two years and one month. As a result, the sentences were adjusted to reflect the intended sentence more accurately.

In conclusion, the appeal against the sentence was partially allowed due to the mathematical error. The original sentences of three years one month imprisonment were set aside, and concurrent sentences of two years and ten months imprisonment were substituted. This adjustment ensured the sentence aligned with the Judge's intended imposition.

Orders