R v Te Pou - [2022] NZHC 3320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-090-5558

[2022] NZHC 3320

THE KING

v

MANAWANUI TE POU

Counsel: D M A Wiseman and M P Blakeley for Crown N T Tupou for Defendant

Sentenced:

9 December 2022

Charges:

Aggravated robbery, kidnapping, intentional damage

Plea:

Guilty

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown Sinisa Law Ltd (Otahuhu) for Defendant

R v TE POU [2022] NZHC 3320 [9 December 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Pou, you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery,1 kidnapping2 and intentional damage.3

[2] Last night, I found out that a week after the aggravated robbery and the kidnapping, and while the police were looking for you, you drove a vehicle running away from the police, and in the course of that you struck and killed a cyclist. You were sentenced, as I found out yesterday, by Judge A-M Skellern for that offending on 22 December 2021.4 You were sentenced to five years and one month’s imprisonment. You are serving that sentence now.

[3] That changes the way in which I have to sentence you today. Instead of sentencing you on the current charges on a standalone basis, I have to take into account the fact that you are serving already a sentence of five years and one month imprisonment. So, at the end of the sentencing process, I will have to decide to what extent the sentence of five years and one month imprisonment is to be added to.

[4] What I am going to do is identify the standalone sentence and once I have done that I will step back and look at the totality of your offending to see by how much the sentence you are currently serving should be increased.

Background

The aggravated robbery and kidnapping charges

[5] On 18 November 2019, you were travelling through West Auckland in a stolen vehicle with your co-defendant, Mr Gemmell, who has already been sentenced for his involvement in the offending.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b): carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 209: carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 269(2)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Te Pou [2021] NZDC 25431.

[6] Mr Kumar, a courier driver, was at work on a delivery run. He stopped his van in the driveway of a house to deliver a package. You and Mr Gemmell drove the stolen vehicle up behind Mr Kumar’s van and stopped, blocking the van from leaving.

[7] Mr Gemmell got out of the car and approached Mr Kumar, attempting to take the keys to the van. Mr Kumar feared for his safety and locked himself in the van.

[8] You then approached the van armed with a screwdriver. You smashed the passenger window of the van. You said to Mr Kumar, “don’t do anything, I have a gun”.

[9] Mr Kumar…

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 Te Pou

Details

AGLC: R v Te Pou [2022] NZHC 3320
Case: [2022] NZHC 3320
Decision Date: 9 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Manawani Te Pou was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and intentional damage. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these crimes, taking into account Te Pou's extensive criminal history, personal circumstances, and mitigating factors. Te Pou had already been sentenced to five years and one month for a separate offence involving a fatal car accident. The court considered that Te Pou's current sentence must be increased, but not doubled, to reflect the totality of his offending.

The court first established a starting point of six years and two months for the aggravated robbery and kidnapping charges, based on the severity of the crimes and Te Pou's role in them. An uplift of two months was added for the intentional damage charge. The court then considered Te Pou's personal circumstances, including his dysfunctional upbringing, mental health issues, and lack of prosocial support. The court found that these factors contributed to Te Pou's offending but ultimately decided against a higher discount due to the high risk of reoffending upon release. Te Pou's guilty pleas and efforts towards rehabilitation in prison were also taken into account, resulting in a 10% discount on the starting point.

After considering all factors, the court determined an end sentence of five years and one month for the current charges, which coincided with the sentence Te Pou was already serving. The court then assessed the overall totality of Te Pou's offending and decided to impose an additional three years' imprisonment on top of his existing sentence, resulting in an overall sentence of eight years and one month. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment, as it deemed the overall sentence sufficient. Te Pou was sentenced to three years for the aggravated robbery and kidnapping charges, and one year for the intentional damage charge, to be served concurrently with his existing sentence. The court also lifted an interim suppression order on Te Pou's name.

In summary, Te Pou was sentenced to an additional three years' imprisonment on top of his existing sentence of five years and one month, resulting in an overall sentence of eight years and one month. The court took into account the totality of Te Pou's offending, his personal circumstances, and mitigating factors in determining the sentence.

Orders