Renata v Police - [2017] NZHC 504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-000145

CRI-2016-409-000146 [2017] NZHC 504

BETWEEN
CHE RAKATI RENATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing: 14 March 2017

Appearances:

L L Heah for Appellant
S J Mallett for Crown

Judgment:

20 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] The appellant was sentenced by Judge D J L Saunders on 4 November 2016 in relation to the following 18 charges:1

(a) 3x theft (one over $1000, two under $500)

(b) 4x shoplifting (one under $500, one $500-$100, and two over $1000) (c) 2x use of a document
(d) 1x unlawful taking of a motor vehicle

(e) 2x receiving property (over $1000) (f) 1x possession of methamphetamine

1 Police v Renata [2016] NZDC 22212.

CHE RAKATI RENATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 504 [20 March 2017]

(g) 1x possession of methamphetamine utensil

(h) 1x possession of cannabis

(i) 2x breach of intensive supervision

(j) 1x breach of community work

[2] The offending occurred over a five month period between May and October last year. The Judge approached the sentencing by separating the offending into three separate tranches, based on time and location (see below). For each set of offending he identified a lead offence and sentenced in relation to that. He then imposed concurrent sentences for the other offences. He then imposed a sentence which reflected the cumulative total of the three lead offences cumulatively, to reach an end sentence of three years, six months imprisonment.

[3] The appellant appeals on the basis that the end sentence was manifestly excessive.

Appeal out of time

[4] The appellant seeks leave to appeal out of time. On the notice of appeal the appellant cites as a reason that he was not aware that he had to file a notice of appeal in addition to his legal aid application. The Crown does not oppose the application, and clearly no party has been prejudiced. Accordingly, I grant leave to appeal out of time.

Background facts

First tranche

[5] The first tranche of offending occurred in Christchurch over a four week period in late May to early June 2016. On 28 May 2016, the appellant approached an unlocked parked vehicle, entered it, and stole a leather motorcycle riding outfit valued at $1750. An hour later he sold the gear to a pawn shop. On 12 June, the appellant and an associate went to the same pawn shop with $1,200 worth of

equipment stolen from a construction site. On 27 June, the appellant stole a car. Police searched the cabin he was occupying and found a glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine. On both 9 and 25 June the appellant stole petrol from a petrol station.

Second tranche

[6] The second tranche of offending occurred after the appellant was bailed to a Dunedin address for the Christchurch offending. On 29 August 2016, the appellant used a stolen BNZ card to purchase goods. On 4 September, the appellant stole
$1,526…

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 [2017] NZHC 504
Case: [2017] NZHC 504
Decision Date: 20 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Renata v Police involved the appellant, Che Rakati Renata, who was appealing against a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment imposed by the District Court for multiple offences committed over a five-month period. The offences included theft, shoplifting, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, possession of drugs, and breaches of bail conditions. Renata argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and sought leave to appeal out of time, which was granted. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles. The court held that while the judge did not clearly articulate the starting point and discounts applied, the overall sentence was within the range that could be properly justified by the gravity of the offending and Renata's history of dishonesty. The appeal was dismissed.

The court examined the sentence imposed for each tranche of offending, considering whether the starting point and uplifts applied were appropriate. For the first tranche, the court concluded that an 18-month sentence for car theft, taking into account the guilty plea, was within the appropriate range. For the second tranche, Renata did not challenge the 12-month sentence. For the third tranche, the court found that a 12-month sentence for theft was slightly higher than the starting point, but still within the appropriate range given the value of the goods stolen and the fact that the offending occurred while Renata was on bail. The court also considered Renata's argument that the totality principle was not properly taken into account, but found that the judge had at least in part addressed issues of totality by grouping the offending into tranches. The overall sentence was considered to be within the range warranted for Renata's persistent offending over a five-month period, where the majority of offending occurred while on bail.

Orders