Rawiri v Police - [2023] NZCA 171

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA708/2022
[2023] NZCA 171

BETWEEN	DANIEL RAWIRI Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	1 May 2023
Court:	Brown, Moore and Fitzgerald JJ
Counsel:	A Y H Young for Appellant N J Wynne for Respondent
Judgment:	17 May 2023 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Moore J)

Introduction

On 30 June 2022, Mr Rawiri, having pleaded guilty to a number of charges in the District Court, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 27 months.[1]
[1]Police v Rawiri [2022] NZDC 12444.
He appealed that sentence to the High Court on the primary ground that the starting point was too high. Although Downs J agreed that the global starting point of three years and seven months’ imprisonment was too high, he was not persuaded that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.[2] He considered that the District Court Judge had been overly generous in giving Mr Rawiri the maximum 25 per cent credit available for his guilty pleas. In all the circumstances of Mr Rawiri’s case, the Judge considered that the orthodox credit should only have been 15 per cent. Had that been applied, the end sentence would have been the same. The appeal was dismissed.
[2]Rawiri v Police [2022] NZHC 2466 [High Court judgment].
Mr Rawiri then applied to this Court for leave to bring a second appeal. Leave was granted on 12 April 2023.[3]
[3]Rawiri v R [2023] NZCA 104 [Leave judgment].
This judgment deals with Mr Rawiri’s second appeal, which the Crown opposes.

Background

The background was comprehensively summarised by Downs J:[4]
[4]High Court judgment, above n 2.
[2]       On 4 November 2020, Mr Rawiri was sentenced to 18 months’ intensive supervision and a term of community work. He was also disqualified from driving for 18 months. Mr Rawiri breached the sentence of intensive supervision on 27 January and 3 February 2021 by failing to report. On 5 March 2021, he again breached the sentence by changing homes without the approval of his probation officer. Mr Rawiri also breached a community work sentence on 5 February 2021 by failing to report.
[3]       On or about 1 June 2021, Mr Rawiri unlawfully took a 2002 Mazda Atenza in Hamilton. Police located the car [on] 9 June 2021. Mr Rawiri was driving. It was displaying a stolen registration plate. Mr Rawiri failed to stop and was chased, including by the Police helicopter. Mr Rawiri drove dangerously. He wove in and out of traffic and drove on the wrong side of the road. Mr Rawiri eventually stopped, then fled. He was found on a nearby property. Mr Rawiri was charged in relation to this sequence. He appeared in the Manukau District Court on 24 January 2021 and was granted bail.
[4]       On 19 July 2021, Mr Rawiri was found, as a passenger, in a car that had been unlawfully taken.
[5]       This…

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 Rawiri v Police

Details

AGLC: Rawiri v Police [2023] NZCA 171
Case: [2023] NZCA 171
Decision Date: 17 May 2023 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered the second appeal of Daniel Rawiri against his 27-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court. The appeal was dismissed. The central issue was whether the end sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the starting point for the sentence was too high, but the reduction given for Rawiri’s guilty pleas was appropriate. The Court also determined that a discount for the time Rawiri spent on electronically monitored bail was not necessary as any discount would have been offset by Rawiri’s extensive criminal history and offending while on bail. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Rawiri’s 27-month imprisonment sentence. The Court found that although the starting point for the sentence was too high, the reduction given for Rawiri’s guilty pleas was appropriate. The Court also found that a discount for the time Rawiri spent on electronically monitored bail was not necessary as any discount would have been offset by Rawiri’s extensive criminal history and offending while on bail. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders