Legal Research
Cases
Tangi v R

Tangi v R

Case [2023] NZHC 1997 28 July 2023

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-2023-404-251

[2023] NZHC 1997

BETWEEN
BRANDON VINCENT TANGI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 July 2023

Appearances:

H Woo and BM Bosomworth for the Appellant H Smith for the Crown

Judgment:

28 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[As to appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 July 2024 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland

TANGI v R [2023] NZHC 1997 [28 July 2023]

The appeal

[1] Shortly after 8 am on 1 September 2022, Mr Brandon Tangi was alone in the driver’s seat of a vehicle in a public carpark on Shore Road, Remuera. The Police came upon him. He was in breach of his bail. His car was searched. In the vehicle, Mr Tangi had a loaded semi-automatic firearm (an AK-47) with 40 rounds of ammunition in two magazines.

[2] Mr Tangi pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of a restricted weapon,1 and one charge of possession of ammunition.2

[3] On 10 May 2023, he was sentenced to 26 months and 14 days’ imprisonment by Judge Bergseng in the District Court at Auckland.

[4] Mr Tangi appeals his sentence. The essence of his appeal is that the discounts for his previous good character, youth (he is now aged 21), and rehabilitative prospects were insufficient and, if properly applied, would have resulted in an end sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less. That would have triggered consideration of home detention, which he says should have been imposed.

[5] Mr Tangi is not on bail pending his sentence appeal. He has already served over two months of his sentence.

[6] This appeal raises some important issues regarding sentence methodology and calculation and discounts for youth.

The facts

[7] The facts are not disputed. It is agreed they are properly set out by the sentencing Judge. At around 8.10 am on 1 September 2022, Mr Tangi was by himself, seated in the driver’s position of a vehicle that was parked in a public carpark on Shore Road, Remuera.

1 Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). The maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 51. The maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment.

[8] Mr Tangi was arrested for breach of bail. The Police conducted a vehicle safety check to ascertain that it was up to warrant of fitness standard. In so doing, they located a semi-automatic AK-47 firearm. It was in the front passenger seat footwell, hidden by a blanket.

[9] The firearm was loaded with a magazine and ammunition containing 16 .223 rounds of ammunition. There was another magazine taped to the loaded magazine with a further 24 rounds. The firearm was easily within reach of Mr Tangi. Had the firearm been used, 16 rounds could have been rapidly discharged, the magazine replaced and reloaded with the second magazine, with another 24…

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 Tangi v R

Details

AGLC: Tangi v R [2023] NZHC 1997
Case: [2023] NZHC 1997
Decision Date: 28 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Tangi v R involved Brandon Vincent Tangi appealing against his sentence for possession of a restricted weapon and ammunition. Tangi had been found with a loaded AK-47 in his vehicle while breaching his bail. He was sentenced to 26 months and 14 days' imprisonment by the District Court. Tangi argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in terms of the discounts for his youth, good character, and rehabilitative prospects. He contended that a proper application of these discounts would have resulted in a sentence of two years or less, triggering consideration of home detention. The High Court examined the sentencing methodology and the appropriateness of the discounts applied. The Court found that the Judge's approach to calculating the sentence discount was mathematically incorrect and that a greater discount for Tangi's youth should have been applied. The correct application of the Moses methodology would have resulted in a sentence of 21.8 months, rounded to one year and 10 months' imprisonment. However, the Court concluded that imprisonment was the appropriate sentence given the nature of the weapon and Tangi's gang connections. Consequently, the sentence of two years two months and 14 days' imprisonment was set aside, and a sentence of one year 10 months' imprisonment was imposed, with leave to apply for home detention refused.

Orders