Legal Research
Cases
R v Romana

R v Romana

Case [2025] NZHC 1401 30 May 2025

Disqualification from Driving

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2024-027-0664

[2025] NZHC 1401

THE KING

v

AIWA ROMANA

Hearing: 30 May 2025

Appearances:

R B Annandale for Crown

C S Cull KC for Mr Romana

Date of sentence:

30 May 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
C S Cull KC, Kerikeri
MWIS Lawyers, Whangārei

R v ROMANA [2025] NZHC 1401 [30 May 2025]

[1] Mr Romana, you come before me today for sentencing on your guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter of your seven-month-old son, Aiwa Ngapera-Romana,1 by omitting without legal excuse to take reasonable steps to protect him from injury when driving your truck.2 That accommodates both your failure as driver to ensure your son was properly secured in a properly fitted child restraint appropriate for his age and size and your failure to drive appropriately for the road conditions.3 Again,4 I offer the Court’s condolence to your son’s survivors.

[2] You pleaded guilty immediately on my 10 April 2025 indication “a court would be likely to sentence you to imprisonment for a period of no more than two years and seven months”.5 That 31-month indication included a 25 per cent deduction for your guilty plea from my starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment.6

[3] My sentence indication, a copy of which will be annexed to the written version of what I am saying now in sentencing you, explains the basis for that starting point. I’m not going to repeat that explanation now, except to say I concluded then:7
I view your … offending … seriously, because it involves your deliberate risk-taking in terms of the road user rules … and with your criminal history. And I consider your deliberate risk-taking a substantial breach of the trust between parents and children, when infants especially must be able to rely on adults for their care, protection and welfare.

I assessed your actions fell between sentencing ranges for more serious offending established in relation to vehicular accidents causing deaths of unrestrained infants in their vehicles,8 and less serious offending in which the child’s death was due to parental inadvertence in failing to protect a child from injury,9 and that resulted in my

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 173: maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 152.
3      Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004, rr 7.6 and 7.3(1)(a).
4      R v Romana [2025] NZHC 866 at [6].
5 At [25].
6      At [20] and [23].
7 At [19].
8      At [18], referring to R v Grace [2020] NZHC 3145; R v Fulcher-Poole [2018] NZDC 21841; and
R v Makoare [2020] NZHC 2289.
9      At [19], referring to R v Tukiwaho [2012] NZHC 1193; E (CA689/10) v R [2011] NZCA 13, (2011)
25 CRNZ 411; and Parangi v R [2019] NZCA 229.

starting point.10 Unless there is new information materially affecting the basis for my indication, which there is not, I am bound by it in sentencing you…

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 Romana

Details

AGLC: R v Romana [2025] NZHC 1401
Case: [2025] NZHC 1401
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aiwa Romana was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for the manslaughter of his seven-month-old son, Aiwa Ngapera-Romana, by omission to take reasonable steps to protect him from injury while driving. The court considered a starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment, reduced by 25% for a guilty plea, resulting in a 31-month indication. The court received submissions from both parties and took into account mitigating factors, including Romana's remorse, his background, and the impact on his family. Ultimately, the court decided on a sentence of 12 months’ home detention, subject to standard conditions and a special condition of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for three years. The court found that imprisonment would not be required to meet sentencing purposes and that home detention would better promote Romana's children's welfare and best interests.

The court identified the legal issues as determining the appropriate starting point for the offending, considering personal mitigating factors, and deciding on the appropriate sentence. The court followed the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court found that Romana's deliberate risk-taking and breach of trust between parents and children warranted a serious sentence. However, the court also considered personal mitigating factors, including Romana's remorse, his background, and the impact on his family. The court found that a sentence of home detention would better promote Romana's children's welfare and best interests and would be a just outcome in all the circumstances.

Orders