R v Pineaha - [2025] NZHC 1992

FINAL ORDER MADE SUPPRESSING THE NAME OF THE VICTIM IN THE WILFUL DAMAGE OFFENCE PURSUANT TO S 202(2)(a) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE PARAGRAPH [35].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2025-020-000362

[2025] NZHC 1992

THE KING

v

TERINA PINEAHA

Hearing: 18 July 2025

Counsel:

C R Walker for Crown P N Ross for Defendant

Sentence:

18 July 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LA HOOD J

Introduction

[1] Ms Pineaha, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Emma Jane Kupa.1 You have also pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving,2 driving with excess breath alcohol,3 failing to stop,4 consuming methamphetamine5 and wilful damage.6

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 150A, 160(2)(a), 171, 177: maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)((b) and (2): maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
3      Section 56(1) and (3): maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment,
4      Section 35(1)(c) and (2): maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(a): maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment.
6      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(a): maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

R v PINEAHA [2025] NZHC 1992 [18 July 2025]

[2] Before going any further, I would like to again acknowledge Emma Jane’s whānau and friends present here today. I have read the victim impact statement completed by Shannon Davis and George Kupa, Emma Jane’s parents. They note that their statement is made on behalf of all of those affected by the loss of Emma Jane – her family, her friends, and the wider community. Ms Davis, you have also this morning bravely read out your statement to the Court and I thank you again for doing that. Emma Jane’s parents detail the endless grief, emptiness, and pain that they continue to suffer. They describe the overwhelming impact that the loss of Emma Jane has had on her sister and the trauma she had to suffer from witnessing Emma Jane’s death. Emma Jane would have turned 12 last week. She was a much-loved moko, daughter, sister, cousin, niece, and friend to many. Her family describes her as a beautiful, spiritual, amazing and head strong child, and one who could at times be quiet as well. Ms Davis and Mr Kupa, as you say in your statement, no sentence that I impose today could ever make up for the loss of Emma Jane, for the loss of what has been taken from you. I also very much regret that the sentencing process today will require me to go through the facts of the offending in some detail, which I know will be upsetting for you.

[3] I also acknowledge those present today to support Ms Pineaha. She will need your support to get her life back on track.

[4] Ms Pineaha, in sentencing you today, I must apply the Sentencing Act. The main purposes of sentencing are to hold you accountable for…

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 R v Pineaha

Details

AGLC: R v Pineaha [2025] NZHC 1992
Case: [2025] NZHC 1992
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Pineaha was heard and sentenced on 18 July 2025. Terina Pineaha was sentenced for her guilty plea to the manslaughter of Emma Jane Kupa, dangerous driving, driving with excess breath alcohol, failing to stop, consuming methamphetamine, and wilful damage. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering personal aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) and a disqualification period for holding or obtaining a driver's licence.

The court set a starting point of seven years' imprisonment, taking into account the excessive speed, intoxication, and persistent bad driving as aggravating factors. The court rejected the defendant's submission for a lower starting point, considering the specific facts of the case. The court applied an uplift of three months for previous convictions and a reduction of 25 per cent for an early guilty plea, as well as a 15 per cent reduction for personal mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of four years and five months' imprisonment. The court did not impose an MPI, but noted that the length of imprisonment would be determined by the Parole Board. Additionally, the court disqualified the defendant from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for three years from the release date and made a final order suppressing the victim's name in the context of the wilful damage offence to prevent undue hardship.

The final orders included a sentence of four years and five months' imprisonment for manslaughter, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, a three-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence starting from the release date, and an order suppressing the victim's name in the wilful damage offence.

Orders