Sasulu v Police - [2024] NZHC 1470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-152

[2024] NZHC 1470

BETWEEN
EDWARD SASULU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 May 2024

Appearances:

M W Budler for Appellant

O J Southern for Respondent

Judgment:

5 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

[Sentence appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 June 2024 at 3 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Auckland for Appellant Crown Solicitor, Manukau for Respondent

SASULU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1470 [5 June 2024]

[1] On 7 March 2024, the appellant, Edward Sasulu, was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention, on two charges of assault on a person in a family relationship.1 The victim was the appellant’s then-partner; he and the victim had been in a relationship for about 15 months. They have a son, who was three months old at the time of the offending.

[2] The appellant appeals against his 14-month sentence, contending it is manifestly excessive and that the sentencing Judge gave insufficient weight to three mitigating factors, namely his youth, his remorse and his challenging personal background as outlined in the PAC report.

Background

[3] I adopt the succinct statement of the underlying facts in the remarks of the sentencing Judge, Judge N R Dawson:2

[2] At about 9 pm on 14 September 2023, you were both at your home address in Clendon. You awoke from a nap to find the victim looking at your phone in your bedroom. She questioned you about women you were following on Instagram, and that turned into an argument between you. You became angry, and whilst she was sitting on the bed, you kicked her once in the back, causing her to become winded for a few seconds. You were asked to leave the address and you took your son with you and ran to the end of the driveway before being stopped by family members and returned to the home address.

[3] The victim was in her mother’s bedroom, feeding the baby on a mattress on the floor, when you came to the doorway. She asked you to leave. You refused and called her a bad mother. While she was still seated, you grabbed her by the hair and pulled her down, causing her head to move backwards, and then you headbutted her in the head. She continued to tell you to leave, and the police were called. You were arrested at the address. The victim has sustained tenderness, a burning sensation, and a mild headache. Her back is sore from the kick.

[4] At the time of the assault, the appellant was three weeks short of his 23rd birthday. He has an extensive criminal history. Judge Dawson noted the appellant had accrued six convictions for violence and seven for other offending since

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194A. Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
2 New Zealand Police v Sasulu [2024] NZDC…

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 Sasulu 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: [2024] NZHC 1470
Decision Date: 5 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Edward Sasulu, sought to appeal his sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment for two counts of assault on a person in a family relationship. The sentence was imposed by Judge N R Dawson in the Manukau District Court. The appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the mitigating factors of his youth, remorse, and challenging personal background.

The court considered whether the appellant’s age warranted a greater discount. The appellant was nearly 23 years old at the time of the offence, and had already been sentenced for other domestic violence charges. The court held that the appellant was near the upper limit for recognising youth, and that the sentencing judge’s assessment was sound. The court also questioned the sincerity of the appellant’s remorse, noting that he had initially denied the assault and continued to minimise the seriousness of the offence. The court acknowledged that the appellant’s personal background was concerning, but held that even an additional 10 per cent discount would not have made a significant difference to the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the sentence properly recognised the seriousness of the assault, the interests of the victim, and the breach of trust that accompanies violence in a domestic relationship. The 14-month sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant’s personal circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of sending a strong message about the severe consequences of relationship violence.

Orders