Rapira v Police - [2015] NZHC 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-485-95 [2015] NZHC 699

BETWEEN
HARLEM PAUL RAPIRA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 March 2015

Counsel:

C J Nicholls for Appellant
S W P Woods for Respondent

Judgment:

14 April 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
4.30 pm on the 14th day of April 2015

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Wellington, for Respondent

RAPIRA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 699 [14 April 2015]

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Hutt Valley to two charges of burglary, one charge of disorderly behaviour, one of supplying alcohol to a minor, and one of escaping custody. He was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment.1 He appeals against that sentence.

[2] The facts were that in the early hours of 1 October 2014 the appellant smashed the front door window of a bar in Lower Hutt. He climbed in through the broken window and went to the bar area and took some alcohol, while the alarm was sounding. He went out through the broken window. He met up with a young person aged 15 and shared some of the alcohol with him. He then went to another hotel nearby with that youth, where they both climbed over a fence and approached the hotel door. The appellant pulled and pushed the door causing it to break open. He and the youth went behind the bar and took more alcohol. They left and walked to the river bank where they were tracked down by a police dog.

[3] The appellant was arrested and appeared in Court later that day,

1 October 2014. He was remanded in custody. While the Judge was completing that process, the appellant ran from the dock and left the Court. He was pursued and apprehended in the alleyway next to the Courthouse.

[4] In sentencing, the Judge adopted a starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment for the two burglaries and the related offences. He allowed a discount of three months to reflect the guilty plea, to give an end sentence of 27 months for the burglaries. On the charge of escaping custody, he imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, cumulative on the 27 months.

[5] In support of the appeal, Mr Nicholls submits that the sentence of two years nine months was manifestly excessive. He submits that the 30 months starting point on the two burglary charges was stern, but concedes that it is within the available range given the appellant’s history. His principal point is the three month, or ten per cent, discount for the guilty pleas. He submits that there was no principled
basis to reduce the discount from the 25 per cent indicated in Hessell v R for an early

1 Police v Repira DC Hutt Valley CRI-2014-096-003017, 28 November 2014.

guilty plea.2 On the six month cumulative sentence on the escaping charge, the only issue is 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 Rapira v Police

Details

AGLC: Rapira v Police [2015] NZHC 699
Case: [2015] NZHC 699
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from Harlem Paul Rapira against his sentence imposed by the District Court at Hutt Valley. Rapira had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including burglary, disorderly behaviour, supplying alcohol to a minor, and escaping custody. He was sentenced to two years and nine months' imprisonment, which he appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly the discount given for his guilty plea. The respondent, represented by the Crown Solicitor, argued that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the discount for the guilty plea was justified by the strength of the prosecution case and the appellant's criminal history.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive and whether the discount for the guilty plea was appropriately justified. The central legal issue was the appropriate level of discount for a guilty plea under the circumstances of this case and whether the sentence, taking into account the discount, was within the appropriate range for the offences committed.

The court acknowledged the principle that sentencing judges have the discretion to assess the appropriate discount for a guilty plea based on the overall circumstances, not merely the timing of the plea. However, it emphasised the need for transparency and consistency in the sentencing process. The court noted that the sentencing judge had not provided reasons for the specific discount applied, which was a departure from what might be expected. The court found that only the strength of the prosecution case could potentially justify a significant departure from the usual discount for a first opportunity guilty plea. Given the appellant's early plea, the court determined that a 25 per cent discount was appropriate, leading to an end sentence of two years and three months. The court quashed the original sentences and imposed new sentences of 23 months for the burglaries and four months for escaping custody, to be served cumulatively, totaling 27 months.

Orders