Legal Research
Cases
Reweti v R

Reweti v R

Case [2018] NZHC 809 26 April 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI 2018-443-3

CRI 2018-443-4

[2018] NZHC 809

BETWEEN
FELON REWETI

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 24 April 2018 (via AVL)

Counsel:

J Woodcock for Appellant S Graham for Respondent

Judgment:

26 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Reweti appeals a sentence of two years nine months’ imprisonment.1 Counsel on his behalf contended at sentencing, and again on appeal, that a non-custodial sentence such as home detention was the desirable outcome. That was the recommendation of the pre-sentence report, but obviously the length of the term of imprisonment precluded that option.

[2] Mr Reweti fits within a group concerning whom there is considerable present concern. He is a young Māori man, presently aged 18 years, already sentenced to prison. He came to the sentencing with some previous offences (which had been met with supervision) and alcohol issues which were instrumental in the most serious of the present offences – the aggravated robbery of a service station.2 He is one of a

1 R v Reweti [2018] NZDC 2874.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b) and (c). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

REWETI v R [2018] NZHC 809 [26 April 2018]

family of 13 who all live at home, and his mother is supportive of him. As noted, the home and the environment were assessed as suitable for a home detention sentence.

[3] In my view, there is little doubt that a non-custodial sentence would be the best outcome for Mr Reweti and for society. An impediment, however, is s 15A(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2002 which limits the standalone sentence of home detention to situations where the person would otherwise receive a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less.3 Unless that is a tenable outcome for Mr Reweti, the sentence is unavailable.

[4] Mr Reweti has done much to make himself a viable home detention candidate. It is far from being a case of simply relying on him being a youthful Māori man, far too many of whom are in prison. First, he is remorseful, and genuinely so. He provided a letter to the Court which contained, in my view, genuine rather than learned sentiments, and which pointed to developing insights. That cannot be overstated, but that is primarily because Mr Reweti is 18 years of age and one cannot expect the maturity of an adult.

[5] Mr Reweti has an interest in cars and attended prior to sentencing an automotive training course. He enjoyed it and did well, and the course seems to have opened his eyes to a different way of going through life than the path on which he was headed. It is instructive to cite from a letter of support provided by the school Manager of the training institute:

He has displayed the ability, skills and attitude to complete his course. This course has given him the skills to build a great future where his…

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 Reweti v R

Details

AGLC: Reweti v R [2018] NZHC 809
Case: [2018] NZHC 809
Decision Date: 26 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Reweti appealed his sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment, arguing that a non-custodial sentence would be more appropriate. The primary issue for the court was whether home detention, as recommended in the pre-sentence report, could be imposed given the length of the term of imprisonment. The court considered whether the statutory limit on standalone home detention sentences could be circumvented, given Mr Reweti's remorse, efforts to change his path, and the suitability of his home environment for such a sentence.

The court found that a non-custodial sentence would indeed be the best outcome for Mr Reweti and society, but that it was impeded by the statutory limit on standalone home detention sentences. The court recognised the significant mitigating factors, including Mr Reweti's remorse, his participation in an automotive training course, and his offer of reparation. The court also considered the need for a sentence that would allow for necessary interventions and the appropriate discount for time spent in prison. The court determined that applying the guilty plea discount simultaneously with other discounts would result in a more suitable sentence.

The court quashed the original sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment and imposed a sentence of ten months' home detention, with conditions set out in the Provision of Advice to Courts report. The sentence of home detention was to take effect as soon as arrangements could be made, with priority requested for its commencement.

Orders