R v Puriri

[2025] NZHC 3143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-088-000684

[2025] NZHC 3143

THE KING

v

AITUA KINO PURIRI

Hearing:

15 October 2025

Appearances:

R Annandale for the Crown

A Fairley and S Pilkington for the Defendant

Sentence:

15 October 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF ROBINSON J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangārei Thomson Wilson, Whangārei

R v PURIRI [2025] NZHC 3143 [15 October 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 Mr Puriri, you come before me today for sentencing having pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter of your three old nephew, Reign Puriri by omitting without legal excuse to take reasonable steps to protect him from injury when you were driving your ute.1 Reign’s father is your brother.

[2]                 This is a tragic case. I start by acknowledging Reign. He was a special boy. He is much loved and he will be greatly missed. I acknowledge his parents. And I acknowledge the pain and suffering that Mr Puriri’s offending has caused you and your whānau. I have read all of the victim impact statements and we have heard three of them read here today. Reign’s mum read hers. So did his great grandmother and his aunty on behalf of the family. Everyone here today, we are all mums and dads, sons and daughters, uncles and aunties and it is impossible not to be greatly moved by all of those victim impact statements. Sadly though, there is nothing I can do or say today that will take away your pain, your grief, or your anger. I extend the Court’s deepest sympathies and I wish all of you the very best on your recovery.

[3]                 Mr Puriri, my job this afternoon is to sentence you in accordance with the law, and on the basis of relevant facts that are not in dispute. On 12 June 2025 the Court gave you a sentence indication.2 You did not accept that indication because on advice you considered there were relevant factual matters still to be resolved. But you accepted responsibility for your offending, and you pleaded guilty. Since then, the facts have been clarified. And it is important that I set out those relevant facts because they are the basis on which I sentence you today. I acknowledge of course that many of these facts are only too well known to all of you but in the course of sentencing Mr Puriri it is important that I record them, including for others who are not necessarily in the courtroom today.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 171 and 177; maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

2      R v Puriri [2025] NZHC 1568 (Sentence Indication).

The offending

[4]                 On Sunday 23 February 2025 at around 1:30 pm you were driving your Holden ute. It did not have a current warrant of fitness. It was not registered. You held a full New Zealand driver’s licence at the time.

[5]                 You drove your ute from your home address to a family property which is approximately 160 m down a public road. There is a long driveway, approximately 370 m, from the road to the house on the family property. That driveway is unsealed. There is a gate just before the house. Through the gate there is a parking and a turning area in front of the house, which is also unsealed.

[6]                 With you in the vehicle was your four year old daughter, and your nephew Reign. There were no child car seats in the vehicle. Neither child was restrained.

[7]                 You had travelled to the family property in order to drop off a lawn mower. You spent some time at the property, together with Reign and your daughter.

[8]                 When it came time to leave, Reign and your daughter got into the vehicle through the driver’s door. Reign went to the front passenger seat and your daughter went to the back seat. They both sat down, but they were unrestrained.

[9]                 You drove away from the house along the driveway towards the road. As the vehicle started moving, Reign and your daughter stood up on their seats. The windows next to each of them were down but you continued driving after they stood up.

[10]             You had driven approximately 38 m when Reign leaned out the window and fell. You had travelled past the gate and onto the drive where there is a moderate curve and some potholes.

[11]             You told Police that you were going about 10 km/h, and that you did not think you were travelling very fast. You do not recall what gear the vehicle was in – you said: “maybe second… maybe still first”.

[12]             You got out of the car to check on Reign and you saw that he was hurt, bleeding and unresponsive.

[13]             You picked Reign up and you drove at speed to your home address. Your daughter was still in the vehicle. Your partner was at home.

[14]             When you got home you called your partner for help. You moved yourself, Reign and your daughter into your partner’s car. She then started driving toward the Whangārei Hospital.

[15]             Along the way you came across your brother, Reign’s father, who was driving towards the family home. He had been away running errands. You told him of Reign’s condition, and he followed in his vehicle.

[16]             Your partner drove to the St John Ambulance Hub in Kensington where medical assistance was sought. Regin was attended to by ambulance staff and then transported urgently to Whangārei Hospital. At the hospital, Reign was pronounced dead.

[17]             The cause of Regin’s death was a traumatic head injury or injuries which resulted from Reign having fallen from the ute you were driving. You accept that in driving your ute with Reign unrestrained you omitted, without reasonable excuse, to perform your duty to provide Reign with necessities and to protect him from injury, and you accept that this caused his death.

Approach to sentencing

[18]             As Mr Annandale and Mr Fairley have correctly said, when a Court imposes a sentence there are two steps it has to take.3 First, it sets a starting point for the sentence and this involves taking into account the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending.

3      Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583.

[19]             Secondly, the Court may adjust that starting point up or down to take into account your personal circumstances.

[20]             I must take into account the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing which Parliament has set out in the Sentencing Act. These include: denouncing your conduct; holding you accountable for the harm that you have done; getting you to accept responsibility for what you have done; and deterring you and others from causing this sort of harm in the future. I must also take into account your rehabilitation needs and reintegration into society.

[21]             The sentence must be proportionate and, as much as possible, it must be consistent with sentences that have been imposed on others for similar offending. The Sentencing Act requires me to impose the least restrictive outcome that would be appropriate in all of the circumstances.4

[22]             I am required to take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors including your age, your guilty plea, any remorse shown by you, your particular circumstances and background and the outcomes of any restorative justice process.5

[23]             In sentencing for neglect of a child, I must also take into account as aggravating factors Reign’s defencelessness; the serious nature of the harm that was caused; and the breach of trust between you and your nephew.6

[24]             My ultimate consideration is to ensure the sentence is “a just one in all the circumstances”, having regard to “the circumstances of the offence and the offender against the applicable sentence purposes, principles and factors”.7

Starting point

[25]             We have all heard and I have also read everything that Mr Annandale for the Crown and Mr Fairley on your behalf, Mr Puriri, have had to say. I have considered

4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(g).

5      Sentencing Act, s 8(h)-(j).

6      Sentencing Act, s 9A.

7      Moses v R, above n 3, at [49].

it carefully. I will not set it all out. It is my job to come to my own decision and to explain my reasons for it.

[26]             The essence of your offending was your driving of the vehicle down the driveway while Reign was not only unrestrained, but standing next to an open window. In this way you caused your nephew’s death by omitting without legal excuse to take reasonable steps to protect him from injury.8 You failed to ensure your nephew was properly secured in a properly fitted child restraint appropriate for his age and size.9

[27]               In each case, manslaughter sentencing is highly dependent on its particular facts. There are no guideline decisions. As the lawyers have said, manslaughter sentencing can be particularly difficult because in manslaughter cases the very serious harm that has been suffered was unintended. I must consider your offending and your culpability for it with reference to its particular aggravating and mitigating factors.10

[28]             You heard the Crown refer me to a number of cases concerning driving causing the death of unrestrained infants. In three of these cases the sentencing court imposed starting points of four, five and seven years’ imprisonment. 11 However, in each of those cases the driver was affected by drugs or alcohol. You were not. Their driving was also worse than yours. In my view the culpability of those drivers was worse than yours.

[29]             I have been referred to cases in which children have died due to their parents inadvertently or accidentally failing to protect them from injury.12 In these cases there were starting points of around three years. As previously indicated, I consider that in many respects your offending is more serious because it involved deliberate risk-taking.

8      Crimes Act, s 152.

9      Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 7.6.

10     Hayden v R [2020] NZCA 369 at [47] – [49]; R v Cossey [2019] NZCA 104 at [43].

11     R v Grace [2020] NZHC 3145; R v Fulcher-Poole [2018] NZDC 21841; R v Makoare [2020] NZHC 2289.

12     R v Tukiwaho [2012] NZHC 1193; E (CA689/10) v R [2011] NZCA 13, (2011) 25 CRNZ 411;

Parangi v R [2019] NZCA 229.

[30]             Both lawyers have spoken to me again about another tragic case here in Whangārei, R v Romana.13 Mr Romana pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his seven-month-old son. He was driving his truck out of Rawene along an unsealed road while his son was in a child’s car seat in the backseat. The car seat was not secured to the vehicle, and the baby was not secured in the car seat.

[31]             Mr Romana lost control of the truck on a corner which then “fish tailed” for about 140 m. The truck left the right-hand side of the road, spun 180 degrees and rolled onto its driver’s side. The impact threw the baby in his seat across the vehicle, causing him fatal head injuries.

[32]             The sentencing judge in that case adopted a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment.14 In doing so the judge took into account Mr Romana’s “moderately extensive criminal history”, which included convictions for careless driving and for family violence.15

[33]             Similarly, Mr Puriri, I adopt a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment. And like the judge in that case, in doing so, I take into account your criminal history which relevantly includes convictions for driving with excess breath alcohol in 2016, driving with excess breath alcohol, at a dangerous speed and contrary to the terms of your limited licence in 2017, and a traffic infringement (though not a conviction) for driving with excess breath alcohol in 2023.

Adjustment for personal factors

Guilty plea

[34]You are entitled to a reduction to reflect your guilty plea.

[35]             Although you declined the earlier sentence indication, as I said, that was because your counsel’s view was that there were relevant facts that needed to be determined and resolved. However, to your credit, one week after the sentence

13     R v Romana [2025] NZHC 1401 [Romana Sentencing Notes]; R v Romana [2025] NZHC 866 [Romana Sentencing Indication].

14     Romana Sentencing Indication, above n 13, at [20].

15 At [17].

indication, you asked to be arraigned and eight days after that you pleaded guilty. In those circumstances I am satisfied that the full reduction is appropriate.

Remorse, rehabilitation and reparation

[36]             In sentencing you Mr Puriri I must consider any remorse that has been shown by you. At your request the Court directed that a restorative justice conference be convened. Reign’s mum, Ms Simona, did not wish to participate in restorative justice. And of course she is fully entitled not to. Reign’s father, your brother, did.

[37]             I have seen the restorative justice report prepared by the facilitator of the conference with Reign’s father. I have also seen your letters of apology, including the letter you would like to provide to Reign’s mother. I have seen letters from various members of your whānau and your work colleagues. And I have seen the pre-sentence report.

[38]             You acknowledge the heartbreak, the grief and the loss that you have caused. You say you wish to do all you can to help heal those you have hurt. You say that you hope for an opportunity to speak with Reign’s mum, but as I have said that is entirely a matter for her.

[39]             You will have to live with the consequences of your offending – the death of your nephew – for the rest of your life. That will be a heavy burden.

[40]             The author of the pre-sentence report concludes that the risk of you reoffending is low. I agree. I also accept from everything I have heard and read that your prospects of rehabilitation are high. You will never ever be so careless again.

[41]             Mr Fairley tells me that you have made an offer of reparation and that you have put him in funds to facilitate that and I must take into account that offer to make amends.16 The Court of Appeal has recently held that where genuine remorse is established, it can attract a discrete discount of between five and 15 per cent.17

16     Sentencing Act, s 10(1)(a).

17     Kohu v R [2023] NZCA 343 at [40].

[42]             I am satisfied that your remorse is genuine and will continue for some time. I am satisfied that a 15 per cent reduction is appropriate to take into account that remorse, your high prospects of rehabilitation and your offer of reparation.

Family circumstances

[43]             I must also take into account your personal, family, whānau, community and cultural background.18 This includes the impact that your imprisonment would have on your two children.19 The Supreme Court has held that what is required here is a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. And the focus is to be on the interests of your children. I acknowledge, like counsel, that is perhaps a difficult point to hear for the victims in this case who have obviously lost one of their own children. But the law requires me to take that into account, the interests of your children, and I do.

[44]             In my assessment, your children’s interests are better served by having you at home, rather than in prison and a reduction is appropriate to reflect that. I also take into account that you are the eldest of seven children yourself, your youngest brother is 15. Both of your parents have recently died, and I am told by many you have a leadership role within your own wider whānau, including your involvement with your younger brother.20

[45]             Applying total reductions of 45 per cent to a starting point of 42 months imprisonment would give an end sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment. As I have said, I am required to ensure the sentence is a just one in all the circumstances, having regard to the circumstances of the offence, the offender and the applicable sentencing purposes and principles. I must impose the least restrictive sentence available in those circumstances.

[46]             Here I am satisfied that imprisonment is not required to meet the purposes of sentencing, and that a sentence of home detention is appropriate. I accept again that here I should take into account the interest of your children and, as I have noted, I

18     Sentencing Act, s 8(i).

19     Phillip v R [2022] NZSC 149, [2022] 1 NZLR 571 at [50]; Ah Tong v R [2024] NZCA 144 at [13].

20     The reduction for the interests of Mr Puriri’s children and others within his whānau is five per cent.

accept that the risk of you reoffending is low. If I were to sentence you to 23 months imprisonment, under the Parole Act you would be released after serving half of that short term sentence.21 I therefore sentence you to 12 months home detention.

[47]             I record that I am satisfied that your address is a suitable home detention residence, your partner has consented, you understand the conditions that will apply, and you agree to comply with them.22 Those are the standard conditions of home detention.23

[48]             I may also impose special conditions. I am satisfied that the six special conditions proposed by the author of the pre-sentence report are appropriate.

Disqualification

[49]             Finally, because you used a motor vehicle to commit this offence, I may order you be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for any period I think fit.24 I am to balance the impact of disqualification on you with the public interest in keeping  dangerous  drivers  “off  the  road  for  as  long  as  reasonably  possible”.25  I consider a three-year period of disqualification appropriately balances those competing interests. I will also note that in the event that you were to drive, particularly during the period of the home detention, there is very high prospect that home detention sentence would be reversed and replaced with one of imprisonment.

[50]             Mr Puriri on the charge of manslaughter, I sentence you to 12 months home detention at the address set out in the pre-sentence report, subject to standard conditions and the special conditions in that report. You are disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for three years. I also make the reparation order that has been referred to in counsel’s submissions.26 You may stand down.

21     Parole Act 2002, s 86(1).

22     Sentencing Act, s 80A(2)(a).

23     S 80C(2).

24     Sentencing Act, ss 124 and 125(2).

25     Hitchens v R CA380/03, 25 March 2004 at [10]. See also Tai v R [2010] NZCA 552 at [6] and

Taiapa v R [2019] NZCA 524 at [28] – [29] and [43].

26 Mr Fairley is to arrange payment of the reparation as referred to in counsel’s submissions. Of the reparation funds, 50 per cent of the reparation payment is to be paid to Reign’s mother and the other 50 per cent is to be paid to Reign’s father.

Post-script

[51]               Consistent with the submissions of both counsel, Mr Fairley sought directions that the sum of $6,000 held in his trust account to fund reparation be paid equally to each of Reign’s parents. I direct accordingly.

Robinson J