Legal Research
Cases
R v Walker-Haturini

R v Walker-Haturini

Case [2021] NZHC 1208 27 May 2021

Credit for Pre-conviction Detention

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-2018-029-1149

[2021] NZHC 1208

THE QUEEN

v

STACEY WALKER-HATURINI

Hearing: 27 May 2021

Appearances:

M Smith for the Crown

A M M Ives for Ms Walker-Haturini

Judgment:

27 May 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

Solicitors:MWIS, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei Annabel Ives, Auckland

R v WALKER-HATURINI [2021] NZHC 1208 [27 May 2021]

[1] Stacey Walker-Haturini, you appear for sentence today on seven charges. You were found guilty of five of those charges on 23 March 2021 following a jury trial in the Whangarei High Court, namely:

(a)Unlawfully possessing ammunition;1

(b)Unlawfully possessing a knife;2

(c)Possessing a cannabis plant;3

(d)Possessing cannabis seeds;4 and

(e)Possessing a methamphetamine utensil.5

[2] Those charges arose from offending that happened in July 2018 (“July offending”). You were also charged with offending that occurred a month later in August 2018 (“August offending”). You pleaded guilty to those two charges on 8 March 2021, namely:

(a)Resisting arrest;6 and

(b)Possessing cannabis seeds.7

[3] As you have heard counsel discuss, there was also one other charge arising out of the August offending, a charge of possession of methamphetamine. I now formally dismiss that charge this morning pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

1      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$5,000.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a). Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $500.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(b). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $500.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $500.
6      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(b). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $500.

The offending

[4] In relation to the July offending it is clear that the jury in your trial accepted that on the evening of 25 July 2018, you were the passenger in your Ford Falcon. It is alleged that your partner Heta Lloyd was the driver. As your car was driving north along State Highway 1 through Awanui, it passed a Police check point. The driver accelerated violently and pulled out on to the right-hand lane, overtaking the vehicle in front of him on a blind corner. Not surprisingly, the Police pursued the vehicle. The driver continued to drive dangerously, reaching speeds of up to 140 kilometres per hour as the pursuit continued into Aupouri Forest and on to Ninety Mile Beach, and shots were fired.

[5] After the second shot the pursuing Police car abandoned the chase, and you and the driver were in turn able to abandon your vehicle on the beach and run into the forest.

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 Walker-Haturini

Details

AGLC: R v Walker-Haturini [2021] NZHC 1208
Case: [2021] NZHC 1208
Decision Date: 27 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stacey Walker-Haturini was sentenced in the Whangarei High Court following her conviction on seven charges related to two incidents in 2018. She was found guilty on five charges from the July incident, including unlawful possession of ammunition, a knife, a cannabis plant, cannabis seeds, and a methamphetamine utensil. She also pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and possessing cannabis seeds from a separate August incident. The court dismissed a charge of methamphetamine possession from the August incident.

The legal issues in this case centered on determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the principles of sentencing, and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court had to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offenses, as well as the defendant's personal history and her role in the offenses.

In sentencing Walker-Haturini, the court first determined a starting point for her sentence based on the seriousness of the offenses. The court then adjusted this starting point based on factors such as the defendant's culpability, the need for consistency with appropriate sentencing levels, and the need for the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including her role as a primary caregiver for her children and her employment history. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of imprisonment was not appropriate due to the significant restrictions on the defendant's liberty that she had already experienced while awaiting trial.

The final orders of the court were that Stacey Walker-Haturini be sentenced to six months' supervision to enable her to attend courses and counseling as appropriate. The court did not impose a term of imprisonment, as it found that the defendant had already served any punitive element of any sentence that could be imposed.

Orders