Shoshonee PULLAN-WHAKARAU v New Zealand Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-000036

[2024] NZHC 3101

SHOSHONEE PULLAN-WHAKARAU

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 23 October 2024

Counsel:

N Bourke for Appellant

R L Hicklin for Respondent

Judgment:

23 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Results decision – appeal against sentence]

[1] At the conclusion of today’s hearing of Mr Pullan-Whakarau’s appeal against sentence, I reserved my decision and indicated I would try to release it today or tomorrow morning. I was overly optimistic about my ability to do so.

[2] In the circumstances, where I have now had more time to consider the well- made arguments by both counsel at the hearing, and I have reached the view that the appeal should be allowed, I have decided to issue a brief results decision now, with reasons to follow.

[3] I have concluded that the starting point was in an available range, but the reductions for personal factors were insufficient, leading to a sentence that was manifestly excessive. An end sentence was available that allowed for consideration of alternatives to imprisonment. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offending,

PULLAN-WHAKARAU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3101 [23 October 2024]

Mr Pullan-Whakarau’s personal factors meant a sentence of home detention was the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances.

[4]Accordingly:

(a)the appeal is allowed;

(b)the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment is set aside;

(c)a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention on the terms set out in the PAC report of 19 August 2024 is imposed instead; and

(d)the proposed special condition of home detention is to apply for 12 months post detention.

Grau J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry, heard an appeal brought by Shoshonee Pullan-Whakarau against the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant contested the sentence of two years and two months' imprisonment for his criminal offences. He argued that the sentence was excessive and did not adequately consider his personal circumstances. The New Zealand Police, as the respondent, defended the original sentence, asserting that it was within the appropriate range given the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the District Court had appropriately balanced the severity of the appellant's crimes with his personal factors when determining the sentence. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the reductions for personal factors were sufficient and if an alternative to imprisonment, such as home detention, was a viable option. The appeal hinged on whether the District Court had erred in its assessment of the appropriate sentence under the Sentencing Act 2002.

In delivering the judgment, Grau J acknowledged the appellant's well-made arguments but also recognised the seriousness of the offences. The judge concluded that while the starting point for sentencing was within the available range, the reductions for personal factors were insufficient, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. The court found that the sentence did not adequately consider the appellant's personal circumstances, which warranted a less restrictive outcome. Consequently, the judge decided that home detention was the most appropriate sentence, allowing for alternatives to imprisonment and adequately addressing the appellant's personal factors. The appeal was allowed, the original sentence was set aside, and a sentence of eight and a half months' home detention was imposed in its place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established