Tahere v The Queen

[2014] NZCA 13

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 637/2013
[2014] NZCA 13

BETWEEN	DOUGLAS CHARLES TAHERE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 February 2014
Court:	Harrison, Asher and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	P J Broad and M M Dixon for Appellant N E Walker for Respondent
Judgment:	18 February 2014 at 12.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

1. Douglas Tahere pleaded guilty in the District Court at Manukau to one charge of burglary.  He was sentenced to a term of nineteen months imprisonment.[1]  He appeals on the ground that a sentence of home detention should have been imposed.

   [1]In R v Tahere DC Papakura CRI-2012-092-006358, 30 August 2013.

2. In February 2012 Mr Tahere and another man stood outside an apartment block complex in Epsom.  They were acting as lookouts for two other men who forced their entry into an apartment.  They took items including $620.00 in cash and a large amount of gold jewellery.  Mr Tahere dumped the stolen property in a rubbish bin but it was later recovered by the police.

3. Mr Broad accepts that a term of nineteen months imprisonment cannot be challenged if that type of sentence was appropriate.  However, he submits that the Judge erred in failing to impose a sentence of home detention instead.  In particular, he says that Judge Winter gave undue weight to the fact that a sentence of four months home detention had previously been imposed on Mr Tahere in 2009 on a number of charges of burglary and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.  He had committed the offending in 2006 when aged 17 years but was sentenced some three years later.  Mr Broad also submits that the Judge failed to take proper account of positive statements made by the probation officer in Mr Tahere’s pre-sentence report.

4. In our view the Judge did not err in giving decisive weight to the fact that Mr Tahere had previously been sentenced to a term of home detention.  He had a proper basis for concluding that such a sentence had previously failed to act as a deterrent against similar offending.  He could have properly added that in the circumstances a sentence of home detention would not hold Mr Tahere accountable for his offending, promote a sense of responsibility for the harm he had caused, properly protect the community from him or denounce his conduct.  A term of imprisonment was the only appropriate sentencing option. 

5. Mr Tahere’s appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Solicitors:           

Public Defence Service, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Solicitor, Auckland for Respondent