Rawiri v Police - [2022] NZHC 2466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-000221

[2022] NZHC 2466

BETWEEN
DANIEL RAWIRI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 27 September 2022

Counsel:

AYH Young for Appellant SE Arnerich for Respondent

Judgment:

29 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 29 September 2022 at 11 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. AYH Young, Auckland.

RAWIRI v POLICE [2022] NZHC 2466 [29 September 2022]

The case

[1] Daniel Rawiri appeals a 27-month term of imprisonment for a raft of offences, including some that are serious. Mr Rawiri’s primary contention is that the starting point was too high. An appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different one should be imposed.1

Background

[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 the 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 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 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 introduces the most serious offending:

(a)On 15 July 2021, hence four days before the events of [4], Mr Rawiri was at the home of his then partner. He had with him a sawn-off shotgun. Mr Rawiri discharged the gun into the bedroom floor. Three

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).

children were in another part of the home. Mr Rawiri assured them he had fired the gun accidentally.

(b)Mr Rawiri returned to the home 26 July 2021 and after a brief argument about the victim’s baby daughter, threatened to shoot the victim if she did not hand her daughter to him. Mr Rawiri did not then have the shotgun with him.

(c)Police went to the home 29 July 2021. They found the shotgun and two rounds of ammunition.

[6]Consequently, Mr Rawiri faced these charges:

Date of offending

Charge

January to March 2021

Breach intensive supervision (x 3)

Breach of community work

1 –…

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 [2022] NZHC 2466
Case: [2022] NZHC 2466
Decision Date: 29 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Rawiri appeals the 27-month imprisonment term imposed by the Manukau District Court for various serious offences, including breaches of intensive supervision and community work, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, dangerous driving, and reckless discharge of a firearm. The central issue in this appeal is whether the starting point for the sentence was too high, potentially rendering the sentence an error warranting an appeal. The High Court was tasked with determining if there was an error in the sentence that necessitated a different one being imposed.

The court examined the starting point for the sentence, which was set at 43 months' imprisonment, a figure derived from a combination of smaller sentences that were made cumulative. The starting point included 33 months for the firearms and threat to kill offences, and an additional 10 months for the breaches of intensive supervision and community work, and the driving-related offences. The court found that the starting point for the firearms offences was slightly too high, as the possession and ammunition offences were partially subsumed by the reckless discharge offence. The court adjusted the starting point for these offences to 30 months, and further reduced the starting point for the remaining offences to six months, resulting in an adjusted global starting point of 36 months. However, the court determined that even with the adjusted starting point, the sentence remained appropriate after considering the discount for the guilty pleas and personal mitigating features, resulting in a sentence of 27 months, which is the same as the original sentence.

The court concluded that while the starting point was slightly too high, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentence was appropriate considering the mitigating factors and the serious nature of the offences, particularly the firearms and threat to kill offences. The court also noted that the driving disqualification period of 24 months was not excessive given the seriousness of the driving offences.

Orders