Sau v The King - [2025] NZHC 1495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-044

[2025] NZHC 1495

BETWEEN
MIRACLE SAU

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2025

Counsel:

L D Burns for appellant R N Benic for respondent

Judgment:

9 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 June 2025 at 4.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: MC, Auckland

SAU v R [2025] NZHC 1495 [9 June 2025]

[1] Miracle Sau pleaded guilty to charges alleging that, together with two associates, he committed offences of aggravated burglary,1 assault with a weapon (x2),2 and assault on a child.3 And he was sentenced alongside them in the District Court.

[2] Mr Sau was sentenced to serve 46 months’ imprisonment. His co-offenders, Emmanuel Pritchard and Johel Mataoa Vui were sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr Sau appeals against the sentence imposed on him. He does not complain about the sentencing calculations — the notional starting point and the adjustments for his personal circumstances — adopted in respect of him individually. But he says his sentencing outcome was unjustifiably disparate to the sentencing outcomes for Mr Pritchard and Mr Vui.

[4] I must allow the appeal if satisfied that for any reason there is an error in the sentence imposed on Mr Sau, and a different sentence should be imposed.4

The offending and the sentences

[5] Late one evening in January 2024, Mr Sau, Mr Pritchard and Mr Vui arrived at rental accommodation occupied by a couple and their three-year-old son in Epsom, Auckland. They were wearing black masks over their faces. Mr Sau was armed with a machete, Mr Vui with a kilikiti bat. They smashed their way through the glass pane of the front door, gaining entry. The family was struck repeatedly with the bat as they cowered on a bed, before the three offenders fled. Mr Sau explained to the pre-sentence report writer that a family member had promised him $1,000 if he gave the father “a good hiding”.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C(1)(a). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(a). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

[6] Assessing the gravity of the offences committed, the sentencing Judge adopted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment. The Judge then turned to the offenders’ personal circumstances.

[7] Recognising that each had pleaded guilty, the Judge started by identifying a uniform 20 per cent reduction for that factor.

[8] Turning to the offenders’ relative youth and previous good character, the Judge applied reductions as follows:

(a)15 per cent for Mr Sau, aged 21, and with minor previous convictions (for operating a vehicle carelessly and unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle);

(b)15 per cent for Mr Pritchard, aged 22, and with a conviction for driving while suspended or revoked; and

(c)20 per cent for Mr Vui,…

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 Sau v The King

Details

AGLC: Sau v The King [2025] NZHC 1495
Case: [2025] NZHC 1495
Decision Date: 9 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Miracle Sau has appealed against his 46-month prison sentence for aggravated burglary, assault with a weapon, and assault on a child, committed alongside two co-offenders. The appeal focuses on the disparity between his sentence and those of his co-offenders, who received 36-month sentences. The court had to determine whether the disparity in sentencing was unjustifiable and gross under the Sentencing Act 2002. Sau argued that his sentence was disproportionately higher than his co-offenders despite similar personal circumstances and guilty pleas. However, the court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the gravity of the offending and the personal circumstances of each offender. The judge had recognised Sau's lack of remorse and his role as the organiser of the crime, justifying the disparity in sentence. The appeal was dismissed as the disparity was neither unjustifiable nor gross.

The court evaluated the sentencing disparity by comparing the reductions applied to each offender. Sau received a 40 per cent reduction, while his co-offenders received 55 per cent reductions. The court found that the differences in remorse, background, and rehabilitative efforts justified the disparity, particularly considering Sau's minimal remorse and his leading role in the crime. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and accountability in determining the sentences. The differences in sentence, though notable, were deemed necessary to reflect the varying degrees of culpability and personal circumstances of the offenders. Thus, the court upheld the sentence imposed on Sau.

Orders