Legal Research
Cases
Solicitor-General v Maipi

Solicitor-General v Maipi

Case [2021] NZHC 2434 16 September 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-300

[2021] NZHC 2434

BETWEEN
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Appellant

AND

ROSEZANA MAIPI

Respondent

Hearing: 13 September 2021

Appearances:

M Davie for the Appellant L Deane for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 September at 3 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington
Public Defence Service, Auckland

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v MAIPI [2021] NZHC 2434 [16 September 2021]

Introduction

[1] The respondent, Rosezana Maipi, was sentenced in the District Court at Auckland on 24 May 2021 on one charge under s 58 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) of being an owner of a dog which caused serious injury to a person.1 The dog, Pumba, took a large piece of flesh out of the victim’s cheek, putting her in hospital for four days.

[2] Ms Maipi pleaded guilty to the charge five minutes before the jury in her trial was due to be empanelled. She did not appear at her sentencing hearing and was not sentenced until over one year later. Judge A S Singh made an order for the destruction of the dog and ordered reparation to the victim.

[3] The Solicitor-General appeals the sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in his approach to sentencing and imposed a manifestly inadequate sentence.

[4] Ms Maipi opposes the appeal and says that despite some errors in the construction of the sentence, the end sentence is not manifestly inadequate.

[5] In determining whether the sentence is manifestly inadequate, the issue comes down to whether something more than reparation is required.

The offending

[6] Pumba was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Ms Maipi’s son was his owner and the dog lived with Ms Maipi and her son at her property in Warkworth. On a previous occasion towards the end of 2017, a man was at Ms Maipi’s address. At that time, Pumba was chained up. Pumba approached the man, who tried to pat him. The dog then lunged at the man and tried to bite his hand. The man was able to get out of Pumba’s reach, as the chain prevented the dog from biting him. The man commented to Ms Maipi to the effect that “your dog almost got me there”. Ms Maipi responded that the dog did not like big people.

1 R v Rosezana Maipi [2021] NZDC 10101.

[7] The events that gave rise to the charge occurred on the morning of 20 January 2018. The victim was known to Ms Maipi and drove to her address for a pre-arranged visit. She was met by Ms Maipi at the gate of the property. They walked together down the driveway to the back of the property. Ms Maipi’s son was not present at the time. Ms Maipi told the victim to wait while she went inside to get some wine glasses. The victim waited by the back door near the dog, which…

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 Solicitor-General v Maipi

Details

AGLC: Solicitor-General v Maipi [2021] NZHC 2434
Case: [2021] NZHC 2434
Decision Date: 16 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Solicitor-General v Maipi involved an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the sentence imposed on Ms Rosezana Maipi for an offence under s 58 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Ms Maipi had pleaded guilty to being the owner of a dog that caused serious injury to a person. The dog, Pumba, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, bit a woman on the cheek, causing a significant injury that required hospitalization and led to ongoing emotional and physical consequences for the victim. The District Court Judge had ordered the destruction of the dog and reparation to the victim but did not impose a custodial sentence. The Judge's decision was based on the belief that the destruction of the dog was punitive enough and that reparation for the victim was sufficient.

The appeal raised several legal issues, primarily focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Solicitor-General argued that the sentence was inadequate due to several errors made by the District Court Judge. These included failing to follow orthodox sentencing methodology, not taking into account Ms Maipi's failure to appear for sentencing as an aggravating factor, not recognizing deterrence as a purpose of sentencing, and incorrectly considering Ms Maipi’s employment when deciding against a community-based sentence. Ms Maipi, on the other hand, contended that despite some errors, the sentence was not manifestly inadequate.

The High Court analyzed the case by first determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, which was found to be six months' imprisonment, considering the severity of the injuries and the previous incident involving the dog. The Court then assessed the uplift for personal aggravating features, agreeing that a one-month uplift was appropriate for Ms Maipi's failure to appear. The mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, warranted a five percent discount. Thus, the notional sentence of imprisonment should have been six and a half months. However, the Court found the Judge had erred in not considering community protection and deterrence as purposes of sentencing, leading to a manifestly inadequate sentence. Given the unavailability of community detention due to logistical issues, the Court imposed a sentence of 400 hours of community work, alongside the reparation orders and the destruction of the dog.

The final orders of the Court were that Ms Maipi was to serve 400 hours of community work, pay $1,888.50 in reparation to the victim for medical expenses, loss of income, and ambulance costs, $500 for emotional harm, and the dog was to be destroyed. The Court allowed the appeal and substituted its own sentence in place of the original sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders