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 the harm you have caused, to promote a sense of responsibility for the harm, to denounce and deter your conduct, to protect the community, and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration back into the community.7 Your sentence must be consistent with the sentences imposed in other reasonably similar cases and I am required to impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.8 Equally, I must consider the seriousness of the offending and your degree of culpability for it as well as the information I have received about the effects of your offending on Emma Jane’s family and the wider community.9

7      Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.

8      Section 8(1)(e) and (g).

9      Section 8(1)(a) and (f).

[5]In coming to the appropriate sentence, I am going to address three matters.

(a)First, I will describe the facts of your offending.

(b)Second, I will set a starting point for your sentence having regard to the aggravating features of the offending itself.

(c)Finally, I will apply uplifts or reductions from that starting point to reflect your personal mitigating factors.

The offending

[6]    Turning first then  to  the  details  of  your  offending.  On  the  morning  of 30 January 2025, you were socialising with friends. At about 10.00 am, you asked a friend to take you to buy food and methamphetamine. You purchased a bag containing about 0.1 grams of methamphetamine from a person in a vehicle in Hastings. You returned to the house, consumed a number of cans of Cody’s and Cruisers, the latter of which were mixed with straight vodka. You smoked methamphetamine from a glass pipe, having at least five or six puffs. After consuming methamphetamine, you were described by observers as emotionally “up and down” and you were intoxicated. At around 2.00 pm, you borrowed an associate’s Holden Vectra car.

[7]    At about 5.38 pm, you arrived at the address of your partner. You were angry because you believed he was being unfaithful with another woman, whose car was parked on the lawn. You deliberately drove into the rear of her car and parked behind it. A heated argument with the occupants of the address and a scuffle followed. You got back in your car and reversed a few metres, before driving towards the rear of the other car a second time. Following the further argument, you got back in your car, you drove up the footpath and into the driver’s side of the other car. You then drove away toward the Chatham Road roundabout at speed.

[8]    As you came to the roundabout, you were driving too fast and drove into the rear of a white Nissan van. The driver pulled over, expecting you to stop as you were meant to do after an accident. Instead, you drove into the roundabout in front of another car approaching from the right, which had to brake to avoid a collision. You

then drove around the traffic island, into the wrong lane, to head south down Chatham Road. You again took off at speed.

[9]    You drove through that suburban area at a speed far exceeding the 50 km/h speed limit. At the time, Emma Jane was riding a bicycle from her home to the nearby dairy, accompanied by her sister. You lost control of your car, went into a slide, and struck Emma Jane on a courtesy crossing, narrowly missing her older sister. It is estimated that you were travelling at a speed between 88 to 105 km/h immediately prior to the collision, and you were on the wrong side of the road. The road was wet at the time, but there were no visibility issues.

[10]   Emma Jane was thrown approximately 25 metres before she came to rest on a grass verge. Members of the public performed CPR until emergency services arrived, but she was not able to be revived.

[11]   Your evidential  breath  test,  carried  out  at  6.37  pm,  gave  a  result  of  595 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, the legal limit for a criminal offence being 400.

Starting point

[12]   I turn now to consider the starting point for your offending. Ms Pineaha, your driving killed Emma Jane as a result of factors that were entirely within your control. Your offending is very serious.

[13]The following factors aggravate your offending:10

(a)Consumption of alcohol: you were intoxicated at the time of the offending. The police did not test the level of methamphetamine in your system at the time but, it is very clear, at least, that you were over the legal limit for alcohol consumption and that methamphetamine would have had some effect. Your consumption of alcohol is reflected

10     Gacitua v R at [26](a)–(b),

in the charge of driving with excess breath alcohol, to which you have pleaded guilty.

(b)Speed: The second aggravating feature is the speed. You were driving at significantly excessive speed. As I have said, it was between 88 km to 105 km/h and the moments leading up to  the  collision  with  Emma Jane was in a residential area.

(c)The prolonged and persistent pattern of bad driving: you committed several offences when engaged in this prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of bad driving.11 In particular, you rear-ended another vehicle whilst it was waiting to enter a roundabout. You failed to stop. You then had a further near-miss with a vehicle on the roundabout when you pulled out in front of it, requiring the driver to take evasive action. You then drove around the traffic island, into the wrong lane before your car slid, went sideways and killed Emma Jane. These offences and the pattern of driving informs the starting point that I must adopt for your offending.

[14]   The Crown has referred me to three cases, with starting points in the range of seven to seven and a half year’s imprisonment.12 Your lawyer, Mr Ross, has invited me to distinguish aspects of those cases, on the basis that you were travelling more slowly than the drivers in those cases, and that your alcohol reading was lower than in the cases relied upon by  the Crown.  He submits, instead, that  a starting point of   six years’ imprisonment is appropriate, with a modest uplift of four to six months for the related charges of dangerous driving, failing to stop and wilful damage.

[15]   However, in light of my findings that your excessive speed and consumption of alcohol were not the only factors in the seriousness of your offending, I do not accept Mr Ross’ submission that a starting point of six years is appropriate.

11     At [26](d).

12     R v McGrath [2014] NZHC 1583, R v Kane [2019] NZHC 2622, and R v Pomare [2017] NZHC 3193.

[16]   The specific facts I keep in mind when setting your starting point are your excessive speed, your intoxication, and the prolonged, persistent, and deliberate course of bad driving that I have already described. I consider that the higher starting point of seven years, proposed by the Crown, more accurately reflects the serious culpability for your offending. In light of this, I do not intend to impose a separate uplift for the related offending which is all taken into account in setting the starting point of seven years’ imprisonment.

Personal aggravating and mitigating factors

[17]   I now turn to consider your personal aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In this regard I have a pre-sentence report dated 26 June 2025, as well as an affidavit prepared by your older sister.

Personal aggravating factors

[18]   The Crown seeks an increase to your sentence (what we call an uplift to the starting point) for your previous convictions and to reflect the fact that you were serving a sentence of supervision at the time of the offending. Mr Ross accepts that an uplift is appropriate but says it should be a modest one.

[19]   You have 29 previous convictions, all of which are low level. In my view, they are not particularly relevant, as they are primarily related to dishonesty offending. Of some relevance though are your two convictions for possession of methamphetamine in 2018 and 2024, but perhaps of most relevance is your conviction for refusing to provide a blood specimen in 2020. Taking all those matters into account, I consider that an uplift of three months is appropriate.

Personal mitigating factors

[20]   Turning then to personal mitigating features. The Crown and your lawyer agree, that because you pleaded guilty at a relatively early stage, you are entitled to the full reduction of 25 per cent for your guilty plea.

[21]   I must take into account your personal, whānau, community and cultural background when considering your personal mitigating circumstances.13 A reduction is available when such background factors help explain how an offender came to offend, if those factors are causatively contributary to the offending.14

[22]   Mr Ross submits that a reduction of 10 per cent for your background factors is appropriate. The Crown says it should be no more than five per cent. The pre-sentence report details that you were  born  in  Palmerston  North  in  1990.  You  are  of  Ngāti Maniapoto descent and the report writer assesses that you have a strong connection to your whakapapa and your whānau. You are, yourself, a mother of five children. You report that these factors give you motivation to address your offending and the report writer considers you show insight into, and were remorseful for, your actions.

[23]   You moved around a lot as a child and left school without any formal qualifications. The evidence I have from your sister is that you experienced violence in your home at a young age, alongside exposure to alcohol and drugs, and you had a period of a few weeks in state care at one point. You have battled with alcohol and methamphetamine abuse for some time. At the time of the offending itself, you were homeless. You were also emotionally distraught at the breakdown of your relationship. I agree with your lawyer, Mr Ross, that these factors were likely an underlying driver of your extreme reaction and behaviour on the day of the offending, such that they had a causative contribution.

[24]   The Crown submits that your expressions of remorse might be insufficient for a separate reduction for remorse. However, in addition to your expressions of remorse in the pre-sentence report, I have had the opportunity of observing you in Court both today and on the day that you pleaded guilty, and the summary of facts was read. I consider that you are genuinely remorseful and some additional reduction is appropriate.

13     Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(1)(i).

14     Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143 at [114]–[121] and Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR

648.

[25]   Taking all those matters into account, I have decided to apply an overall reduction of 15 per cent for your personal circumstances.

End sentence

[26]   From a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment, I apply an uplift of three months for your previous convictions and the fact that you were serving a sentence at the time of your offending. I then apply a reduction of 25 per cent for your early guilty plea and 15 per cent for your personal mitigating features.

[27]This results in an end sentence of four years and five months’ imprisonment.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[28]   Turning to the question of a minimum period of imprisonment. Under s 86 of the Sentencing Act, I have the power to order an offender facing a sentence of more than two years’ imprisonment to serve an extended minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). This applies where the possibility of parole after the normal period would mean that the sentencing principles of holding an offender accountable, denunciation, deterrence and protecting the community from the offender, will not be adequately fulfilled by the statutory parole period.15

[29]   The Crown submits that the offending is of such seriousness, when coupled with your criminal history, that an MPI should be imposed.16 Mr Ross submits that the assessment is best made by the Parole Board, and that you will have to carry the burden of the knowledge of your offending for the rest of your life.

[30]   I agree that your offending is very serious and your culpability is high, but the tragic death of Emma Jane is not an outcome that you intended. I have already taken the seriousness and consequences of your offending into account when setting the starting point for your sentence. I do not accept that your criminal history, which primarily relates to dishonesty offending, supports a heightened need to deter and denounce your offending by imposing an MPI.

15     Sentencing Act 2002, s 86(2).

16     R v McGrath, above n 12, and R v Kane, above n 12.

[31]   Therefore, I do not impose an MPI. But it must be borne in mind that how long you spend in prison will be a matter for the Parole Board, and that you could potentially spend the whole of the term in prison. It will be for the Parole Board to decide when you have parole, which is very likely to depend on whether you engage in the rehabilitation opportunities available to you during your sentence.

Other orders sought

[32]   The Crown also seeks that I make an order disqualifying you from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for three years from the release date of your sentence. I am able to make such an order for any period I think fit, beginning on the day the order is made or at any other time that I direct.17

[33]   The pre-sentence report writer describes your risk of reoffending as moderate and your risk of harm to others as high. In light of this, and the risk factors identified by the report writer, which includes your substance abuse and addiction, I agree that a disqualification period of three years is appropriate.

[34]   I direct that that disqualification is to start from the date that you are released from prison.

[35]   Finally, I accept the Crown submission that publication of the wilful damage victim’s name, in the context of the summary of facts, will cause her undue hardship and I make a final order suppressing her name.

Conclusion and result

[36]Ms Pineaha, please stand.

[37]   On the charge of manslaughter, I sentence you to four years and five months’ imprisonment. The other sentences I am about to impose will be concurrent, which means your overall sentence will be four years and five months’ imprisonment.

17     Sentencing Act 2002, ss 124–125 and Land Transport Act 1998, s 85(1).

[38]   On the charge of dangerous driving, I sentence you to two months’ imprisonment.

[39]   On the charge of driving with  excess  breath  alcohol,  I  sentence  you  to two months’ imprisonment.

[40]On the charge of failing to stop, I sentence you to one month’s imprisonment.

[41]   On the charge of consumption of methamphetamine, I sentence you to one month’s imprisonment.

[42]On the charge of wilful damage, I sentence you to three months’ imprisonment.

[43]   I make an order disqualifying you from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of three years, starting from the date of your release from prison.

La Hood J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Napier

Cathedral Lane Law, Napier for Defendant