Rangitonga v Police - [2014] NZHC 2323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-443-024 [2014] NZHC 2323

BETWEEN
ISIAH MANAAKITANGA

RANGITONGA Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2014

Counsel:

J C Hannam for appellant
B C Sweetman for respondent

Judgment:

24 September 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Rangitonga pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent) and one charge of driving while disqualified. He was sentenced by Judge Roberts in the New Plymouth District Court on 16 September
2014 to six months’ imprisonment and 16 months’ disqualification from driving. He appealed against the sentence on the basis that community detention coupled with supervision ought to have been imposed.

Facts

[2] Mr Rangitonga was disqualified from driving indefinitely on 23 January

2008. On 2 August 2014, Mr Rangitonga was stopped for a minor traffic infringement. His breath contained 613 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

[3] Mr Rangitonga’s relevant previous convictions include:

RANGITONGA v POLICE [2014] NZHC 2323 [24 September 2014]

(b)1 November 2007: driving while disqualified and driving with excess breath alcohol of 559 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath (sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with special release conditions of indefinite disqualification);

(c) 26 August 2007: excess breath alcohol (sentenced to one month imprisonment);

(d) 30 November 2006: driving while disqualified; and

(e) 11 May 2006: driving with excess breath alcohol.

Pre-sentence report

[4] The Probation Service Advice to the Court on sentencing noted that Mr Rangitonga did not minimise his offending behaviour. It suggested that he appears to be maturing since the recent death of his father. Mr Rangitonga is responsible for his mother’s care, and the care of his two young children during weekends, one of whom is a type one diabetic and requires a high level of care.

[5] Mr Rangitonga is employed by a civil engineering firm, and that employment is seen as a stabilising factor. However, he was classified as having a long term pattern of excessive and harmful drinking involving moderate drinking throughout the week followed by heavy drinking sessions on Friday nights. He has an inability to moderate his use of alcohol and his on-going association with a network of friends who support anti-social behaviour is a barrier to positive change in his life. He was seen as having some insight into the impact of his drinking. His risk of re-offending, risk of causing harm and motivation to address alcohol problems were all assessed as moderate.

[6] The report writer did not recommend home detention because of concerns regarding Mr Rangitonga’s inability to abstain from alcohol and the impact of home detention on his family. Police records show three family violence call-outs

involving Mr Rangitonga. Two of these involve his ex-partner and one his late father. The report noted that an electronically monitored sentence could place increased stress on him and his household. Community detention was not recommended because it would not remove Mr Rangitonga from high risk situations. Instead, the…

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 Rangitonga v Police

Details

AGLC: Rangitonga v Police [2014] NZHC 2323
Case: [2014] NZHC 2323
Decision Date: 24 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by Mr Rangitonga, who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and 16 months' disqualification from driving by the New Plymouth District Court for driving with excess breath alcohol and driving while disqualified. Mr Rangitonga's appeal was against the sentence, arguing that community detention coupled with supervision should have been imposed instead. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at New Plymouth.

The legal issue before the court was whether the District Court judge erred in his discretion when imposing the sentence. The appeal hinged on whether the District Court judge applied an incorrect principle, failed to take into account a relevant factor, took into account an irrelevant factor, or was plainly wrong.

The High Court found that the standard for a successful appeal had not been met. The court noted that while Mr Rangitonga had not received a rehabilitative sentence before, his drinking patterns and living situation made him unsuitable for home detention or community detention. The court agreed with the District Court judge that a sentence of community work and supervision would be insufficient to properly denounce Mr Rangitonga's persistent driving offending and to deter others. The court also held that the case of Afamasaga v Police did not assist Mr Rangitonga, as the facts and circumstances of that case were different.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of six months' imprisonment and 16 months' disqualification from driving was upheld.

Orders