Tapueluelu v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-707

[2025] NZHC 566

BETWEEN

JAMES TAPUELUELU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

11 March 2025

Appearances:

R Abbott for Appellant

F Ganchi for Respondent

Judgment:

11 March 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against sentence]

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland R Abbott, Barrister, Auckland

TAPUELUELU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 566 [11 March 2025]

What this appeal is about

[1]    James Tapueluelu appeals a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment in respect of three charges, imposed by Judge Fraser in the Waitakere District Court on 22 November 2024.1

[2]    The sentence was imposed first in respect of a charge of strangulation2 and a related charge of assault on a person in a family relationship,3 to which Mr Tapueluelu pleaded guilty.

[3]    Second, in respect of a charge of assault with a weapon4 in respect of the same woman, his partner, for which Mr Tapueluelu was found guilty after a defended hearing.

[4]    Mr Tapueluelu challenges his sentence as being manifestly excessive. There is no dispute taken with the starting point. However, Ms Abbott who has presented the appeal responsibly and persuasively, maintains there are four errors in the component parts of the sentence that cumulatively result in a sentence that was manifestly excessive, and which justify the Court’s intervention. In particular, it is alleged:

(a)there should have been allowance for the guilty plea;

(b)Mr Tapueluelu’s time on bail with a 7 pm to 7 am curfew, for 19 months, should have been recognised with a reduction of perhaps three months;

(c)Mr Tapueluelu’s rehabilitation efforts should have been explicitly recognised with a reduction of 10 per cent; and

(d)for “good character” there should have been reduction of five per cent.

1      New Zealand Police v Tapueluelu [2024] NZDC 28731 [Judgment under appeal].

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

3      Section 194A. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.

4      Section 202C. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

[5]    The police, represented by Mr Ganchi, oppose the appeal. The police emphasise that the issue for the Court is essentially whether the end sentence is manifestly excessive. Mr Ganchi’s view is that plainly it is not.

[6]    I have come to a clear view that this appeal, while raising some genuinely arguable points, cannot succeed. I briefly set out my reasons.

Mr Tapueluelu’s offending

[7]    The offending relates to the same victim and occurred on two days separated by a 20 month gap.

13 August 2021 offending

[8]    Mr Tapueluelu had a disagreement with his partner about their three-month- old daughter. He became angry and started throwing things. He then used both hands to grab his partner around the throat, lifting her off the ground. The victim was unable to breathe for about 10 seconds. He dropped her and punched her two or three times to the head. She tried to retreat but Mr Tapueluelu…