Rehu v Police

[2022] NZHC 2159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-000219

[2022] NZHC 2159

BETWEEN

PATRICK HARE REHU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

29 August 2022

Appearances:

J Murdoch for Appellant

M Taumoepeau for Respondent

Judgment:

29 August 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

Solicitors:           Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau

Public Defence Service, Manukau

REHU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2159 [29 August 2022]

[1]    On 2 June 2022 the appellant, Patrick Rehu, was sentenced by Judge A M Wharepouri in the District Court at Manukau to an effective end sentence of 10½ months on charges of careless driving, driving while disqualified, refusing to give blood and failure to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.1

[2]    Mr Rehu appeals the sentence. The basis for the appeal is the Judge was in error in the way he structured the sentence, particularly in relation to an additional uplift of two months for offending whilst on bail.

[3]    The Judge structured the sentence in the following way. He took six months for the breach of reporting conditions’ offending, and six months for the driving offending. He then uplifted that by two months for previous convictions and a further two months for offending whilst on bail, arriving at an aggregated figure of 16 months. From that the Judge allowed 25 per cent for the guilty pleas and 10 per cent for Mr Rehu’s remorse. That led to the end sentence of 10½ months.

[4]    Section 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 applies to the appeal. The appeal must be allowed if the Court is satisfied if for any reason there is an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed.

[5]    Counsel for the Police, Ms Taumoepeau, has responsibly confirmed that the Police accept the Judge was in error in adding an additional uplift of two months for offending whilst on bail. The offending did not occur while Mr Rehu was on bail. No other substantive points are pursued on behalf of Mr Rehu.

[6]    In the circumstances there clearly was an error in the Judge’s calculation of the end sentence which should be addressed by this Court.

[7]    The appeal will be allowed. The sentence should have been structured on the basis of the 14 months’ aggregated periods for the offending and the uplift for previous convictions. Applying the 25 per cent discount for a guilty plea and 10 per cent for

1      Police v Rehu [2020] NZDC 10226.

remorse leads to an adjusted end sentence of 9.1 months or nine months as opposed to the 10½ months that was imposed.

[8]    For those reasons the appeal is allowed. The existing sentence of 10½ months is quashed. It is replaced by a sentence of nine months.

[9]    For the record I confirm that counsel have confirmed that there is no issue regarding suppression of Mr Rehu’s name. Any suppression has lapsed.

Venning J