Renata v Police - [2018] NZHC 2673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000276 [2018] NZHC 2673

BETWEEN
TAMATI RENATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 October 2018

Appearances:

A M M Ives for Appellant
I Murray for Respondent

Judgment:

17 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

Thisjudgment was delivered by me on 17 October 2018 at 10 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

RENATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2673 [17 October 2018]

[1] Mr Renata pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of theft and burglary. On 28 February 2018, Judge Andrée Wiltens sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment.1 He appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in several respects and this caused the end sentence to be manifestly excessive.

[2] Mr Renata requires leave because he filed his appeal well out of time. The respondent has not been prejudiced by the delay and does not oppose leave being granted. I make an order accordingly.

Background

[3] The theft charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the morning of 29 September 2017. On that day Mr Renata and a female associate went to an area where vehicles were parked at the Alexandra Park Raceway on Greenlane Road in Epsom. There they found a vehicle with a Louis Vuitton handbag inside. Mr Renata damaged the door lock of the vehicle in an unsuccessful attempt to enter it. He then smashed a rear quarterlight window and thereby gained access to the vehicle. He removed the handbag, which contained cosmetics and hairstyling equipment, and left the scene with his associate. The handbag and contents have not been recovered. They had a total value of $3,540.

[4] The burglary charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred approximately two weeks later, on 13 October 2017. At about 1.45 pm on that day
Mr Renata and a male associate went to a residential address in Manurewa. They gained access to the address by kicking a hole in an exterior wall. Unknown to
Mr Renata and his associate, the address was occupied by the 13 year old daughter of the owner of the property. She locked herself in her bedroom closet and telephoned her father. Her father then went to the property, where he saw two males jumping over the back fence and running away from the address. A police dog handler was then called, and a police dog followed a track from the fenceline of the property into neighbouring properties, where he located a bag containing property stolen from the victim’s address. Forensic examination revealed that a piece of black tape inside the
bag contained traces of DNA matching that of Mr Renata. When the police

1 New Zealand Police v Renata [2018] NZDC 4006.

interviewed Mr Renata, he made full admissions regarding the burglary. He said he had bills to pay…

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 Renata v Police

Details

AGLC: Renata v Police [2018] NZHC 2673
Case: [2018] NZHC 2673
Decision Date: 17 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tamati Renata appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge Andrée Wiltens in the District Court. Renata pleaded guilty to charges of theft and burglary. The District Court Judge sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment. Renata submits the Judge erred in imposing the sentence, and the sentence was manifestly excessive. Renata requires leave to appeal because he filed his appeal out of time. The respondent has not been prejudiced by the delay and does not oppose leave being granted. Leave is accordingly granted. Renata has numerous previous convictions for burglary and theft, including convictions since his last conviction for burglary in 2006. The court finds the starting point of two years imprisonment and the uplifts applied to reflect the theft charge and Renata's previous convictions to be within the available range. The court accepts Renata's expressions of remorse, and it was open to the Judge to apply a discount to reflect these. The court also accepts Renata exposed himself to risk by naming a person who may have been his co-offender in the burglary. The court finds the Judge ought to have applied a discount to reflect this. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of two years six months imprisonment on the burglary charge is reduced to two years one month imprisonment. The sentence of two years six months imprisonment on the theft charge is reduced to a concurrent sentence of five months imprisonment.

Orders