Legal Research
Cases
Rangi v Police

Rangi v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 1460 5 June 2024

Miscarriage of Justice

Mandatory Sentencing

Cumulative Sentences

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-170

[2024] NZHC 1460

BETWEEN
TUAINEKORE CHARLIE RANGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 June 2024

Appearances:

A Kala and SNR Evans for appellant S J Cox for respondent

Date of judgment:

5 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 June 2024 at 12.30pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau

RANGI v POLICE [2024] NZHC 1460 [5 June 2024]

[1] With leave to appeal out of time,1 Tuainekore Rangi appeals against the 1 April 2021 decision of Judge R J McIlraith in the District Court at Manukau,2 sentencing him to three months’ home detention and disqualifying him from driving for two years on his guilty pleas to charges of unlawfully using a motor vehicle,3 failure to stop for flashing lights (third or subsequent),4 dangerous driving,5 possession of a utensil,6 common assault,7 and breach of release conditions.8

[2] Mr Rangi’s appeals specifically are against his conviction and sentence on the charge of failing to stop for flashing lights, as not being a ‘third or subsequent’ offence in terms of s 52A of the Land Transport Act 1998 and therefore not attracting the otherwise mandatory two-year disqualification.9

Background

[3] In relation to his driving at Auckland’s Clover Park on 19 July 2020, Mr Rangi relevantly was charged with and pleaded guilty to having:

… failed to comply with a lawful requirement given to [him] under section 114(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998 by an enforcement officer in that [he] being the driver of a vehicle and being followed by a motor vehicle displaying flashing blue and red lights or sounding a siren failed to stop, [he] having, on at least 2 previous occasions, been convicted of an offence against section 114.

Mr Rangi previously was convicted of such failures to stop on 17 August 1996, 5 July 2003 and 14 September 2003 (twice). Also in relation to his driving at Auckland’s Clover Park on 19 July 2020, Mr Rangi was charged with and pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving brought under s 35(1)(b).

1      Rangi v Police HC Auckland CRI-2024-404-0170, 18 April 2024 (Minute of Andrew J) at [8].
2      Police v Rangi [2021] NZDC 6103.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 226. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52A(1)(a)(i).
5      Section 35(1)(b) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $500 fine.
7      Crimes Act, s 196. Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
8      Parole Act 2002, s 71(1). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
9      Land Transport Act, s 52A(5)(b).

Judgment under appeal

[4] Judge McIlraith noted he was “to complete the sentencing process for the six charges” Mr Rangi faced.10 The Judge addressed Mr Rangi’s conviction for unlawful use of…

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 Rangi v Police

Details

AGLC: Rangi v Police [2024] NZHC 1460
Case: [2024] NZHC 1460
Decision Date: 5 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rangi v Police, Tuainekore Charlie Rangi appeals against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court at Manukau on 1 April 2021. Rangi was sentenced to three months’ home detention and disqualified from driving for two years, following his guilty pleas to charges of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, failure to stop for flashing lights (third or subsequent), dangerous driving, possession of a utensil, common assault, and breach of release conditions. Rangi specifically contests the conviction and sentence on the charge of failing to stop for flashing lights, arguing that it was not a "third or subsequent" offence as defined under section 52A of the Land Transport Act 1998, and therefore should not have attracted the mandatory two-year disqualification. Rangi's appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland on 4 June 2024, and the judgment was delivered by Justice Jagose on 5 June 2024.

The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether Rangi's conviction for failing to stop for flashing lights was correctly classified as a "third or subsequent" offence under section 52A of the Land Transport Act 1998, and whether the two-year disqualification imposed on this charge was appropriate. The Court had to determine if the mandatory nature of the disqualification order constituted a 'manifestly excessive' sentence, and whether a different sentence should be imposed.

Justice Jagose concluded that Rangi's conviction for failing to stop for flashing lights was indeed for an offence under section 52A(1) but was wrongly classified as a "third or subsequent" offence. The Court found that Rangi's previous convictions were under the predecessor of section 52A, not section 52A itself, meaning his last failure to stop was not a "third or subsequent" offence. The mandatory two-year disqualification was therefore inappropriate, and the correct disqualification should have been six months. Additionally, the Court inferred that the District Court had also imposed a six-month disqualification on Rangi's dangerous driving conviction, which should run cumulatively with the disqualification for the failing to stop offence. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed. The Court varied Rangi's sentence by quashing the two-year disqualification and replacing it with a six-month disqualification order from 9 June 2021, to run cumulatively with the six-month disqualification from 9 December 2020.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and allow the appeal against sentence, varying the sentence by replacing the two-year disqualification with a six-month disqualification order.

Orders