Rangi v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1790

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-000059

[2021] NZHC 1790

HENDRIX RANGI

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 15 July 2021

Appearances:

C Horsley for the Appellant I Hayden for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J [SENTENCE APPEAL]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 July 2021 at 4 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

HENDRIX RANGI v R [2021] NZHC 1790 [15 July 2021]

Background

[1]Hendrix Rangi pleaded guilty to charges of:

(a)cultivation of cannabis;1

(b)possession of utensils for the use of methamphetamine;2

(c)unlawful possession of a pistol;3

(d)unlawful possession of ammunition;4

(e)wilful damage;5

(f)assault on a person in a family relationship;6

(g)breach of community work;7 and

(h)breach of supervision.8

[2] On 28 May 2021, Mr Rangi was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment by Judge C J Harding in the Whakatane District Court.9

[3] Mr Rangi appeals. He takes no issue with the individual sentences on the various charges but argues that the Judge erred by failing to consider or address the suitability of a sentence of home detention. The Crown opposes the appeal and argues

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9. Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty of one years’ imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding $500, or both.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 50(1)(a). Maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding $4,000, or both.
4      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding
$5,000, or both.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A. Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
7      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(a). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
8      Sentencing Act 2002, s 70(b). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
9      Police v Rangi [2021] NZDC 10528.

that the Judge was justified in imposing a sentence of imprisonment as the final sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[4] The following facts are taken from the Police Summary of Facts and Community Probation Service Caption Sheet which Mr Rangi accepted as accurate by virtue of his guilty plea.

Cultivation of cannabis, unlawful possession of a pistol and ammunition, and possession of utensils for the use of methamphetamine

[5] At around 7.45 am on 17 December 2020, Mr Rangi was at an address in Tawera. Police executed a search warrant at the address. The search revealed 25 cannabis plants growing in various areas of the property. The plants were at varying stages of growth.

[6] Police also searched two vehicles on the property. One vehicle contained one live shotgun cartridge, three live .270 Winchester bullets and a glass pipe for smoking methamphetamine. The other vehicle contained one live .22 bullet and a starter pistol which had been…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rangi v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1790
Case: [2021] NZHC 1790
Decision Date: 15 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hendrix Rangi appealed against his 21-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Harding in the Whakatane District Court, arguing that the judge failed to consider the suitability of a sentence of home detention. Rangi took no issue with the individual sentences on the various charges but argued that the judge erred by failing to consider or address the suitability of a sentence of home detention. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the judge was justified in imposing a sentence of imprisonment as the final sentence was not manifestly excessive. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the sentence was one which should have been commuted to home detention, and whether the sentencing judge actually turned his mind to this question. The court found that the judge did turn his mind to the issue of whether Rangi's sentence of imprisonment should be commuted. The greatest concern to the judge was Rangi's prior firearms offences. Rangi's history did not assist his appeal as a variety of community-based sentences had been imposed in the past and yet his offending continued. The pre-sentence report concluded that home detention was unsuitable given that Rangi would be residing with the victim of the family violence offence. In light of the seriousness of Rangi's repeat firearm offending, the ineffectiveness of his prior community-based sentences, and the fact that the victim resided at the proposed home detention address, the court found that the judge did not err by imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than a sentence of home detention. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made.

Orders