Ratahi v Police - [2014] NZHC 2394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-000054 [2014] NZHC 2394

ROY ROGER RATAHI Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 29 September 2014

Appearances:

Tim Barclay for the Appellant
Annabel Cresswell for the Respondent

Judgment:

1 October 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by on 1 October 2014 at 2:00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

RATAHI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2394 [1 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] Early in the evening of 2 May 2014 the owner of a Nissan Sentra parked his car in a street in Rotorua and locked it.

[2] Not long afterwards Mr Ratahi broke into it and hotwired the ignition before driving off.

[3] Later that evening the Police tried to stop the car for a routine traffic breath test. Instead, Mr Ratahi accelerated away in an attempt to avoid the Police, travelling faster than 80kph in a 50kph area. With the Police in full pursuit behind him, Mr Ratahi made a left hand turn and went through a stop sign. From there he drove at speeds in excess of 100kph in zones which were covered by 60kph and
70kph speed restrictions.

[4] As he attempted to negotiate an easy bend he lost control of the car and spun out across the opposite side of the road.

[5] He immediately jumped out and ran away but was tracked by a Police dog and located in some scrub-land not far away. He struggled and was bitten before being taken into custody.

[6] At the time he was aged 18 years. He was charged with unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, reckless driving and failing to stop. The maximum penalties for these offences are seven years’ imprisonment, three months’ imprisonment and a fine respectively.

District Court decision

[7] On 21 August 2014 he was sentenced in the Rotorua District Court. The Judge noted his age and his pleas of guilty. She also considered the aggravating factors including previous offences of dishonesty, burglary and unlawful taking recorded both in the Youth Court and the District Court. She noted that he had been convicted on 12 charges in February 2013 for which he received two years’

imprisonment. He had been released only three weeks before the present offending, a factor which her Honour regarded as a significantly aggravating.

[8] For the unlawful taking the Judge took a starting point of two and a half years which she reduced by 25 per cent in recognition of the guilty plea. A further reduction of two and a half months was given in recognition of Mr Ratahi’s age leading to a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. In relation to the dangerous driving he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment concurrent with the unlawful taking. He was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence and on the charge of failing to stop he was convicted and discharged.

Appeal

[9] Mr Ratahi appeals only 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 Ratahi v Police

Details

AGLC: Ratahi v Police [2014] NZHC 2394
Case: [2014] NZHC 2394
Decision Date: 1 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ratahi v Police involves Roy Roger Ratahi, who appealed against his sentence for unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, reckless driving, and failing to stop. The District Court had sentenced Ratahi to 20 months imprisonment for unlawfully taking the vehicle, two months for dangerous driving, and a discharge for failing to stop. Ratahi appealed only the sentence for unlawfully taking the motor vehicle. The High Court was required to determine whether there was an error in the sentence imposed by the District Court and if a different sentence should be imposed. The Court examined whether the starting point for the unlawful taking was excessive and if the discount for the guilty plea and the reduction for Ratahi's age were appropriate. The Court found that a starting point of two and a half years was manifestly excessive and that a starting point of no more than 18 months should be adopted for the unlawful taking, with an uplift of one month for the dangerous driving and failing to stop charges. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the District Court was within the range available to the Judge and dismissed the appeal. However, the Court substituted a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for the unlawful taking, while the sentences on the other charges remained unchanged. The post-release conditions imposed by the Judge remained, and leave to apply for home detention was granted in terms of s 80K of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders