IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE
CRI-2024-488-000039
CRI-2024-488-000040 [2024] NZHC 1937
BETWEEN METAHA HARLEY RANGI
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 10 July 2024 (via AVL) Appearances:
C Murray for Appellant C Megala for Respondent
Judgment:
16 July 2024
JUDGMENT OF GORDON J
This judgment was delivered by me on 16 July 2024 at 10 am
……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Davidson & Associates, Kaikohe
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
RANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1937 [16 July 2024]
[1] The appellant, Metaha Rangi, pleaded guilty to two charges of driving with excess breath alcohol (EBA) for the third or subsequent time1 and three charges of driving while disqualified for the third or subsequent time.2 Judge D J McDonald sentenced Mr Rangi to 26 months’ imprisonment.3 He appeals his sentence on the grounds that:
(a)The uplift for the offending on 2 October 2023 (driving while disqualified) was excessive.
(b)The uplift for prior offending was excessive.
(c)The guilty plea discount of 20 per cent was inadequate. A full guilty plea discount of 25 per cent was appropriate.
(d)The Judge erred in adopting a cumulative approach rather than a concurrent approach with the result that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.
[2] Mr Megala, counsel for the respondent, says the Judge did not err as alleged and submits the end sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering Mr Rangi’s history and the aggravated nature of the offending.
The offending
[3] On 22 July 2023, Mr Rangi was driving along North Road in Kaitaia when he was stopped by Police. He underwent the excess breath alcohol procedure and returned a level of 597 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He explained that he had “a few beers at a tangi” and was on his way home. At this time, Mr Rangi’s licence
1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1) and (4): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ disqualification.
2 Section 32(1) and (4): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a $6,000 fine and more than one year’s disqualification.
3 Police v Rangi [2024] NZDC 10508.
had been indefinitely revoked as part of a sentence for previous EBA and driving while disqualified charges in 2021.
[4] On 2 October 2023, Mr Rangi was driving along Whitaker Road in Warkworth when he was again stopped by Police. It was discovered that he was a disqualified driver. His car was impounded for 28 days.
[5] Finally, on 7 May 2024, Mr Rangi was driving a motor vehicle bearing a false registration plate in Te Reinga Street, Kaitaia. He was followed by Police and signalled to stop. He underwent a breath screening test which he failed, returning a level of 702 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He continued to be disqualified from holding a licence. Mr Rangi was arrested as he was in breach of bail conditions for the active charges.
[6]Accordingly, the offending for which…
Continue reading Rangi v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rangi v Police [2024] NZHC 1937
- Case
- [2024] NZHC 1937
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the Judge imposed an excessive uplift for the driving while disqualified charge on 2 October 2023. Rangi’s counsel argued for a two or three-month uplift, but the court found that the four-month uplift imposed was justified, considering Rangi’s history of similar offending and the principle of totality. Regarding the uplift for prior offending, the court found that the four-month uplift was appropriate, given Rangi’s extensive history of land transport act breaches. The court also considered the adequacy of the guilty plea discount, finding that a 20 per cent discount was appropriate given Rangi’s delay in entering his pleas. Finally, the court assessed whether the cumulative approach taken by the Judge was appropriate, considering the aggravating factors present in the offending. The court concluded that the cumulative approach was justified given Rangi’s recidivist offending and the need for deterrence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment was affirmed, though the court noted that the correct sentence should have been 28 months’ imprisonment due to an arithmetical error in the Judge’s calculations.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.