Puloka v The King - [2024] NZHC 2196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000339

[2024] NZHC 2196

BETWEEN
MAKELANI PULOKA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 29 July 2024

Appearances:

B C Moyer for Appellant B So for Respondent

Judgment:

6 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 6 August 2024 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date …………………………..

PULOKA v R [2024] NZHC 2196 [6 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed in respect of charges of reckless discharging of a firearm1 and intentional damage.2

[2] The appellant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for remorse, rehabilitation and youth mitigating factors. The starting point adopted was three years nine months’ imprisonment.

[3]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Factual background

[4] At about 11.45 pm on 19 July 2022, the victim, Ms A, had just been dropped off at home in Glen Innes by her three daughters. She was standing at her laundry window waving goodbye to the daughters as they reversed out of the driveway in their vehicle.

[5] Mr Puloka and his three co-offenders arrived at the address in two separate vehicles. One of them had a disagreement with Ms A’s sons who lived at the address with her.

[6] Mr Puloka and his co-offenders all exited the vehicles, two of them carrying shotguns. One of Mr Puloka’s co-offenders, Mr Texas Wiremu, shot at the house. Shotgun pellets entered the laundry window where Ms A was standing, causing glass from the window to fall into her hair. The same co-offender shot twice at the vehicle containing Ms A’s three daughters, puncturing two of the rear tyres. He then shot at a car parked in Ms A’s driveway. One of the offenders in the group said “That’s what happens when you fuck with family”. Mr Puloka and the offender group then left.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 198(2) and 66: maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, ss 269(2)(a) and 66: maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[7] On 12 August 2022, Mr Puloka and the co-offender who fired the shots on the first occasion returned to Ms A’s address. They walked to the front door, each holding a firearm, one of which was a shotgun. The pair fired 12 shots into the front door of the address, causing extensive damage to rooms in the house. The property was empty, Ms A and her family having earlier moved out.

District Court sentencing decision

[8] Mr Puloka and his three co-offenders were sentenced in two separate lots. First, the District Court Judge sentenced Texas and Wiremu Doctor (father and son) on 12 April 2024.3 Second, his Honour sentenced Mr Puloka and Mr Repia on 27 June 2024.4

[9] On 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 Puloka v The King

Details

AGLC: Puloka v The King [2024] NZHC 2196
Case: [2024] NZHC 2196
Decision Date: 6 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Makelani Puloka appeals against a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment for recklessly discharging a firearm and intentionally damaging property. The Crown opposes the appeal. Puloka contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for remorse, rehabilitation and youth mitigating factors. The starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge was three years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The Court found that the Judge made no error in adopting a starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment for the lead offending. The offending involved significant aggravating features, including planning and premeditation, targeting of a residential home, multiple shots fired, risk of serious injury to multiple vulnerable victims, the extent of harm and loss, and multiple offenders. The Court rejected Puloka’s submission that his offending was on a par with that of Mr Dashwood in R v Jolley, as the offending here was more serious. The Court found that the starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was within range.

The Court agreed that Puloka has demonstrated remorse and insight into his offending and engaged in two rehabilitation courses while on bail. However, the Court found that the end sentence reached, namely two years and three months’ imprisonment, was within range. The substantial discount of 52.5 per cent was an appropriate and proportionate response on the facts of this case.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders