Rewita v Police - [2013] NZHC 2175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2013-425-000029 [2013] NZHC 2175

MICHAEL WILLIAM REWITA

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 26 August 2013

Counsel:

S Claver for Appellant
M J Thomas for Respondent

Judgment:

26 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1] This is an appeal against a sentence of 20 months imprisonment imposed in relation to four offences which were sentenced together. The appellant faced a charge of assault with intent to injure, a charge of burglary and two of breaching protection orders. His offending related to three separate occasions.

[2] On 25 November 2012, he was with his partner. They were drinking together and this obviously led to arguments. There was a protection order in being having been made in the District Court in March 2010. The complainant tried to disassociate herself by lying on the couch covered in a blanket. The appellant however was not to be dissuaded. He pulled her to the ground. Initially he slapped her with an open hand, but then both punched and kicked her. Her injuries were not serious, rather consisting of swelling, bruising and some resulting pain. She was
however off work for a number of days.

REWITA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2175 [26 August 2013]

[3] Following the assault, the appellant picked up the complainant’s laptop and deliberately broke it in two. He then fled from the house and the police were phoned. In the result, the complainant moved out of the property and resided for a time in a unit in a camping ground.

[4] The next offending occurred on 2 February. The appellant at this point was on bail. He went to the complainant’s home to speak to his daughter. There was another argument, he was told to go, but refused to do so, and a further complaint of breach of the protection order resulted. The Judge described this as not a serious breach of its kind.

[5] However, on 4 May there was a further incident. By then I assume that the appellant and the complainant were on somewhat better terms. He was out drinking and sent a text to his partner to come and pick him up. She did so, but a further argument broke out when they were together in the car. This resulted in her driving to the police station to report another breach of the protection order. However, the appellant fled from the car, went back to the complainant’s home and entered it through a bathroom window. He then turned on elements on the oven, turned them on to full. He sent a text message to his partner saying that she had left the oven on and had better come home and do something about it.

[6] The complainant eventually did that and when finding that her house had been entered, she went to the appellant’s home and caused property damage to items of his.

[7] The appellant entered pleas of guilty to the charges and was sentenced in the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rewita v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 2175
Decision Date: 26 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Rewita v Police was heard. Michael William Rewita, the appellant, appealed against a 20-month imprisonment sentence imposed for four offences: assault with intent to injure, burglary, and two breaches of protection orders. These offences were related to three separate incidents. The court had to decide whether the sentencing process was flawed due to the judge's disavowal of using the guideline sentencing judgment from Nuku and whether the final sentence was clearly excessive.

The court examined the sentencing process and the judge's decision to disregard the guideline sentencing judgment from Nuku. Although the judge stated that the authority of Nuku did not apply to assaults of this kind, the court found that the acceptance of an 18-month starting point for the assault with intent to injure aligned with the three bands identified in Nuku. Since counsel agreed that 18 months was an appropriate starting point, the court concluded that this was not a significant issue in the appeal. Furthermore, there was no express criticism of the other steps in the sentencing process. The court found that the overall pattern of offending and the individual offences warranted the 20-month imprisonment sentence, which was within the available range.

The High Court concluded that the sentence was not clearly excessive, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The manner in which the sentence was arrived at was unconventional, but the final sentence was deemed appropriate considering the appellant's extensive criminal history and the nature of the offences. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account the overall pattern of offending, as well as the individual offences, when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders