Tamehana v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 2850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2019-488-000027

[2019] NZHC 2850

BETWEEN
RIMA TE OI TAMEHANA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 4 November 2019

Appearances:

C S Cull for Appellant

J M M Johnson-Aufa’i for Respondent

Judgment:

4 November 2019

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

TAMEHANA v R [2019] NZHC 2850 [4 November 2019]

[1] Mr Tamehana pleaded guilty in the District Court to six charges of reckless driving causing injury,1 and one charge of failing to ascertain whether a person had been injured following a motor vehicle accident.2 On 19 August 2019, Judge G L Davis sentenced Mr Tamehana to two years imprisonment.3

[2] Mr Tamehana appeals against sentence solely on the ground that the Judge ought to have imposed a sentence of home detention rather than imprisonment.

Background

[3] The factual basis on which the Judge sentenced Mr Tamehana was contained in a summary of facts that Mr Tamehana accepted for the purposes of sentence. This recorded that on the Sunday of Labour weekend in 2018, Mr Tamehana was attending an unveiling in Moerewa with other members of his whanau. Late in the afternoon he began driving a BMW motor vehicle his uncle had borrowed from a friend in Auckland. He and his uncle and a 21 year old associate then drove to a farm to pick up a pig. On the way back, they stopped at a liquor store. It appears that the liquor store was shut.

[4] The summary records that Mr Tamehana then drove back to Moerewa. After passing an area known as the Three Bridges he accelerated well past the posted speed limits of 80 and 100 kilometres per hour, overtaking other vehicles as he did so without slowing down. His uncle was seated in the front seat of the vehicle and his associate noticed that it was travelling at about 200 kilometres per hour as they passed the Moerewa Freezing Works.

[5] Mr Tamehana continued to drive in a northerly direction into the Moerewa township. As he went through the township he was still travelling at speeds well in excess of the posted speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. He then left the township and approached a moderate right hand corner. Crash analysts later calculated that he

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(a).
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(c).
3      Police v Tamehana [2019] NZDC 16502.

was travelling at a speed of between 120 kilometres per hour and 150 kilometres per hour at this time. As he went into the bend he lost control of the vehicle. The vehicle hit a concrete kerb and then slid sideways down the road, crossing the centreline as it did so. Mr Tamehana’s vehicle then collided head-on with a small Toyota motor vehicle driven by Mrs Faaaliga and occupied also by her three young children. She was returning from a family function in Kaikohe at the time of the…

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 Tamehana v The Queen 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: [2019] NZHC 2850
Decision Date: 4 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Rima Te Oi Tamehana against his sentence, which was handed down by Judge G L Davis in the District Court. Tamehana had pleaded guilty to six charges of reckless driving causing injury and one charge of failing to ascertain whether a person had been injured following a motor vehicle accident. The appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment, a decision he now contests on appeal, arguing that home detention would have been a more appropriate sentence. The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing imprisonment rather than home detention.

In reviewing the case, the High Court noted that sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion and must be exercised with regard to the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002. Although the sentencing judge did not explicitly discuss the sentencing principles in detail, it was clear from his remarks that he considered deterrence, denunciation, and accountability to be paramount. The judge noted the appellant's prolonged period of reckless driving, reaching speeds of up to 200 kilometres per hour, and the severe injuries sustained by the victims. Additionally, the judge highlighted the appellant's previous convictions for similar offences, which further aggravated the situation. Given the severity of the current offence and the appellant's criminal history, the High Court found that imprisonment was the only realistic option available to the sentencing judge.

The court dismissed the appeal against the sentence, affirming the decision of the District Court. The High Court found no error in the judge's discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention, given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's previous convictions. The serious injuries sustained by the victims, particularly the extensive injuries to Mrs Faaaliga and her young son, played a significant role in the court's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of two years imprisonment was upheld.

Orders