Tangitu v Police - [2016] NZHC 2484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-463-000037 [2016] NZHC 2484

BETWEEN
MATEKITAWHITI TANGITU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2016

Appearances:

C M Andersen for Appellant
N T C Batts for Respondent

Judgment:

18 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors:
C M Andersen, Barrister, Tauranga
B Hesketh, Barrister, Tauranga
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

TANGITU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2484 [18 October 2016]

Facts

[1] On 3 August 2016 Ms Tangitu, aged 66, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of three charges of causing loss by deception, under s 240 of the Crimes Act 1961, carrying a maximum penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment.

[2] At the time of offending Ms Tangitu was serving a sentence of 12 months on home detention and also was under an obligation to make reparations of $6,500. That sentence was for four charges of misuse of a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage, and one charge of causing loss by deception. Those were her first convictions.

[3] The first of the offences relevant to this appeal was committed on

23 December 2015. Ms Tangitu asked someone if they would be interested in doubling their money, in two days. After the victim initially declined, Ms Tangitu persisted explaining her nephew had come back from Africa with diamonds. Why that might make a difference is difficult to understand. However, she was given
$1,000 and further inquiries about the money were ignored.

[4] The second and third offences were committed on 15 February 2016. Ms Tangitu said an old woman had left $500,000 to the Catholic Church for the poor and needy, and she could get the second victim a large amount of money. Two weeks later the second victim gave her $1,500 on the basis of a promise of getting
$15,000 back. Further inquiries yielded continuing promises but no payment.

[5] On the same date, the third victim was told the same story about the Catholic Church, and deposited $4,000 into a bank account. Queries also resulted in further promises but no payment.

District Court decision

[6] Judge Rollo in the District Court at Whakatane sentenced Ms Tangitu to 12
months’ imprisonment.1 He used a starting point of 18 months on the basis of several aggravating factors including that Ms Tangitu had selected vulnerable

1 Police v Tangitu [2016] NZDC 15947.

victims and the offending was committed while on home detention for similar offences.

[7] Judge Rollo gave Ms Tangitu a six month or 33 per cent discount to reflect her early guilty plea, her personal circumstances and good character references. He declined to commute imprisonment to home detention because the offending had been committed while Ms Tangitu was on home detention for similar offending. Judge Rollo had regard to the fact that Ms Tangitu had lied to the pre-sentence report writer about repaying the victims, as well as to the seriousness of the charges.

Submissions

[8] Ms Andersen, agent for Mr Hesketh who is counsel for…

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 Tangitu v Police 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: [2016] NZHC 2484
Decision Date: 18 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tangitu v Police involved an appeal against sentence brought by the appellant, Matekitawhiti Tangitu, who was convicted of three charges of causing loss by deception. Tangitu was serving a sentence of 12 months on home detention and was under an obligation to make reparations of $6,500 for previous convictions when she committed the current offences. Tangitu appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the starting point should have been lower, given the lack of aggravating factors. Tangitu also argued that the court erred in not granting leave to apply for home detention and that there should have been a greater discount for personal circumstances and good character.

The legal issues in this case centred on whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was within the range available to it, and whether there was any error in the sentence that warranted a different sentence to be imposed. The High Court considered the purposes of sentencing and the principles of sentencing, including the gravity, culpability, and seriousness of the offending, consistency with sentences for similar offenders, and the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the starting point of 18 months was within the range available to the District Court, given the nature and circumstances of the offending. The court also found that the discounts applied were appropriate, and that home detention was not an option given Tangitu's history of offending while on home detention. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was within the range available to the District Court.

This case highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances and factors of each case when determining an appropriate sentence. The court must balance the purposes of sentencing with the principles of sentencing, and consider the nature and circumstances of the offending, as well as the offender's personal circumstances and background. In this case, the court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and within the range available to the District Court, and dismissed the appeal.

Orders