Rangi v Police

[2023] NZHC 3617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-479

[2023] NZHC 3617

BETWEEN

JOHN WILLIAM RANGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

5 December 2023

Appearances:

A W Slipper for Appellant

R N T Thompson for Respondent

Judgment:

11 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2023 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Public Defence Service, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

RANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3617 [11 December 2023]

[1]                 Mr Rangi appeals against a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge K Muir on 8 August 2023 in respect of the following:1

(a)two charges of burglary;2 and

(b)five charges of shoplifting (under $500).3

[2]                 The appellant submits that the end sentence was manifestly excessive, and that a sentence of 20.2 months’ imprisonment should instead have been imposed, commuted to home detention.

[3]The grounds of appeal are:

(a)the starting point was too high;

(b)a two-month uplift for previous theft charges was excessive given the interests of totality (an uplift of only one month would have been more appropriate); and

(c)a further 20 per cent should be applied to reflect Mr Rangi’s personal circumstances and the role that drug addiction played in causing his offending.

Legal principles

[4]                 The Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.4 Generally, the sentence must be shown to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.5 The focus is on the end sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it is reached.6

1      New Zealand Police v Rangi [2023] NZDC 16889.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a).

3      Sections 219 and 223(d).

4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

5      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [26]–[27] and [31]–[35].

6 At [36].

[5]                 The claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive (or inadequate) is inevitably premised on the contention of prior error, which may include questions of whether the starting point was too high given the facts, or of incorrect discounts.7

[6]                 Appellate courts do not indulge in mere tinkering with a sentence.8 The Court generally will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.

District Court decision

[7]                 Judge Muir arrived at an end sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment, using the following analysis:

(a)a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment for the Tokoroa vehicle burglary;

(b)an uplift of 10 months’ imprisonment for the burglary at a wastewater facility;

(c)an uplift of two months’ imprisonment for the theft charges;

(d)the above resulted in an adjusted starting point of 38 months’ imprisonment, after a four-month adjustment downwards was made to account for the totality principle;

(e)an uplift of two months’ imprisonment  was  added  to  account  for…