Rikiti v The King - [2025] NZHC 1118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2025-463-000025

[2025] NZHC 1118

BETWEEN
DANIEL RIKITI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 28 April 2025

Appearances:

T Braithwaite for the Appellant

A McConachy for the Respondent (via VMR)

Judgment:

9 May 2025

Reissued:

12 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Sentence appeal]

Solicitors/Counsel:
Braithwaite Law, Rotorua Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua

RIKITI v R [2025] NZHC 1118 [9 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 7 March 2025 Judge Geoghegan in the Rotorua District Court sentenced Daniel Rikiti to three years’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death.1

[2] Mr Rikiti appeals his sentence which he says was manifestly excessive because:

(a)the starting point of four years imprisonment was too high; and

(b)the Judge failed to give adequate discounts for Mr Rikiti’s guilty plea and other personal mitigating factors.

[3] Mr Rikiti also seeks leave to introduce on appeal an affidavit sworn by him on 24 March 2025. Mr Rikiti’s affidavit exhibits confirm the contents of a letter dated 4 October 2024 that he wrote to the District Court for the purposes of sentencing. Counsel for Mr Rikiti, Mr Braithwaite, explained that at sentencing he (counsel) understood the letter had been sent to the District Court and served by email, and made submissions on that basis. But due to an administrative error unattributable to Mr Rikiti, neither the Court nor the Crown had Mr Rikiti’s letter.

[4] The Crown opposes both the appeal and the application to admit Mr Rikiti’s affidavit evidence.2

[5] As explain below, I consider that Mr Rikiti’s affidavit raises a factual dispute about the nature of Mr Rikiti’s offending that is potentially relevant to sentencing. It is not possible for this Court on appeal to resolve that dispute, and it would be inappropriate to do so. In these unusual and regrettable circumstances, I have determined that the appropriate course is for Mr Rikiti’s sentence to be quashed and

1 R v Rikiti [2025] NZDC 5138. Land Transport Act 1998, s 36AA(1)(a). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 For completeness, the Crown opposes the admission of Mr Rikiti’s evidence insofar as it relates to his offending and therefore the sentencing starting point. I did not understand the Crown to oppose the admission of Mr Rikiti’s evidence insofar as it addresses his personal mitigating circumstances.

for the matter to be sent back to the District Court for a disputed facts hearing under s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The agreed statement of facts

[6] The agreed statement of facts records that on the morning of 17 September 2022 at approximately 2:00 am, Mr Rikiti was driving his Subaru along Arawa Street, Rotorua. The complainant and his partner were walking along Arawa Street in the opposite direction. The complainant’s partner crossed Arawa Street, approximately 8- 10 metres in front of the complainant.

[7] The complainant then stepped from the footpath onto the road crossing the fog line…

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 Rikiti v The King

Details

AGLC: Rikiti v The King [2025] NZHC 1118
Case: [2025] NZHC 1118
Decision Date: 9 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Rikiti appeals his three-year imprisonment sentence, imposed by Judge Geoghegan in the Rotorua District Court, for dangerous driving causing death. Rikiti contends that the starting point of four years' imprisonment was too high and that the sentencing judge failed to appropriately discount his sentence for his guilty plea and other personal mitigating factors. Additionally, Rikiti seeks leave to introduce an affidavit he swore on 24 March 2025, which exhibits confirm the contents of a letter he wrote to the District Court on 4 October 2024. This affidavit was not available to the District Court due to an administrative error. The Crown opposes both the appeal and the application to admit Rikiti's affidavit evidence.

The court had to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the factual disputes raised by the affidavit should be considered. The court found that the affidavit raised a factual dispute about the nature of the offending, which was potentially relevant to sentencing. However, the court could not resolve the dispute as it did not have the relevant evidence, and it would be inappropriate to do so. The court determined that the appropriate course was for Rikiti's sentence to be quashed, and for the matter to be sent back to the District Court for a disputed facts hearing under s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Rikiti's sentence of three years' imprisonment is set aside. The matter is to go back to Judge Geoghegan for resolution of relevant factual disputes in accordance with s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In the meantime, Rikiti is to be remanded on bail pending a disputed facts hearing and sentencing in the District Court.

Orders