Rule-Winiata v Police - [2014] NZHC 894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI 2014-416-000004 [2014] NZHC 894

BETWEEN
DAWSON RULE-WINIATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 2 May 2014

Appearances:

C Scott for Appellant
F E Cleary for Respondent

Judgment:

2 May 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J

Solicitors:
Woodward Chrisp Lawyers, Gisborne
Crown Solicitor, Gisborne

RULE-WINIATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 894 [2 May 2014]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Dawson Rule-Winiata, was sentenced by Judge Adeane in the District Court at Gisborne on 18 February 2014 to two years and three months’ imprisonment for offending involving multiple burglaries, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, and theft.1 He has appealed against sentence on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] On 15 December 2013 the appellant and his associate discussed the need to get items that could be sold for petrol money for travel to Taupo from Gisborne. The appellant went to a neighbouring property and saw keys sitting in the ignition of a vehicle. He entered the house and removed a laptop, tablet, mobile phone, and wallet as the victim slept. He reversed the vehicle out of the driveway and picked up his associate. They sold the stolen items for cash.

[3] Between 18 December and 21 December, the pair were in Tokoroa. The appellant gained entry into a house by climbing in a window. He let his associate in. They stole a 42 inch television and a laptop. While looking for somewhere to sell the items, they entered another property via the back door and took items including a PlayStation and cellphone. The occupier of the address observed them leaving.

[4] On 23 December 2013, the appellant and his associate observed a window open at a residential address. The appellant gained entry and let his associate in. They took a PlayStation, clothing, and alcohol. The items were sold for $150 cash. On 27 December, the appellant let himself in to another house and took a mobile phone and keys. He was chased by the occupier. Also on 27 December, he approached a vehicle and observed keys inside. He entered it and drove off, heading toward Taupo. The next night he returned to Tokoroa and left the vehicle at an empty house.

[5] On 1 January 2014, the appellant gained entry to a house through a sliding door. He took an Xbox and games, Nintendo DS and games, and a mobile phone, which were later sold for $250. On 2 January, he entered another house and took car keys and then drove a motor vehicle from the address to Taupo.

District Court Decision

[6] The appellant was sentenced on seven charges of burglary (one of which involved property worth over $5000), two charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, and one charge of theft.

[7] The Judge noted the appellant’s age (he is 17 years old) and the fact that he has no previous convictions. He took this into account, and noted that that “the incidence…

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 Rule-Winiata 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: [2014] NZHC 894
Decision Date: 2 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dawson Rule-Winiata appealed against a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment for multiple burglaries, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, and theft. The District Court had imposed the sentence after allowing discounts for a guilty plea and youth, but not for the lack of previous convictions or rehabilitative prospects. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Police maintained that the sentence was within the proper range.

The appeal hinged on whether the District Court had erred in sentencing the appellant. Specifically, the appeal considered whether the starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment was too high and whether the discount for youth was insufficient. The appeal also considered whether home detention would be an appropriate alternative to a prison sentence.

The Court found that the starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment was too high. A starting point of three years would have been appropriate. The Court also found that a 10 percent discount for youth was insufficient. Following the guilty plea discount, the Court found that an end sentence of two years’ imprisonment was appropriate. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and imposed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment in its place. The Court did not give leave for the appellant to apply for substitution of a sentence of home detention.

The Court made the following final orders: (1) the appeal is allowed; (2) the sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment is quashed; (3) a sentence of two years’ imprisonment is imposed in its place; (4) leave is not given to the appellant to apply for substitution of a sentence of home detention.

Orders