Tauira v The King - [2025] NZCA 540

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA182/2025
[2025] NZCA 540

BETWEEN	PEKAROA TAUIRA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	29 September 2025
Court:	Mallon, Whata and Venning JJ
Counsel:	S P Dickson for Appellant B So for Respondent
Judgment:	14 October 2025 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe conviction and sentence are set aside.
CWe make an order discharging the appellant without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Para No
Mallon and Whata JJ	[1]
Venning J	[36]

MALLON AND WHATA JJ

(Given by Mallon J)

Introduction

Pekaroa Tauira pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property. Her application for a discharge without conviction was declined and she was sentenced to six months’ supervision.[1] She appeals the decision declining to discharge her without conviction.
[1]R v Schwenke [2025] NZDC 6421 [sentencing notes].
Ms Tauira signed the notice of appeal on 13 June 2025. Her counsel, Ms Dickson, advises that she has since lost contact with Ms Tauira. Ms Tauira’s phone number is not working and she does not appear to be living at her last known address. However, as Ms Dickson’s most recent instructions were to proceed with the appeal, she has proceeded to advance her appeal. We accept it is appropriate that she do so.

Background

Ms Tauira was initially charged with stealing money valued at $8,480.[2] She entered a not guilty plea and elected trial by jury. A little over three years later Ms Tauira entered a guilty plea to an amended charge of receiving stolen property (in the amount of $6,482), knowing it to have been stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen.[3]
[2]Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b).
[3]Sections 246–247.
The application for a discharge without conviction proceeded on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. As set out in that agreed statement, on 10 and 11 May 2021 an unknown male called the victim, who is 82 years old, claiming to be a bank technician and convincing her to install a remote access application on her computer. This enabled the computer to be manipulated and a series of five withdrawals from the victim’s bank account totalling $32,980 were made. One of these withdrawals was of $8,480 which was received into the bank of account of Ms Tauira on 10 May 2021 at 1.54 pm.[4] At 4.13 pm Ms Tauira received $6,482 of this sum when she visited a bank branch and withdrew it over the counter.
[4]It is not suggested that Ms Tauira was connected in any way to the other four withdrawals received into the bank accounts of others.
With the help of the victim’s son, the victim reported the withdrawals to her bank and to the police. The victim, who has lived alone since her husband died, says the incident has affected her confidence and general ability to cope with life. She advises that her bank has fully reimbursed her.

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 Tauira v The King

Details

AGLC: Tauira v The King [2025] NZCA 540
Case: [2025] NZCA 540
Decision Date: 14 October 2025 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pekaroa Tauira appealed against the decision of the District Court to decline her application for a discharge without conviction. The appellant was charged with stealing money from an elderly victim but pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property. The District Court declined to grant her a discharge without conviction and sentenced her to six months’ supervision. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the appellant without conviction. The Court considered that the gravity of the offending was low, given the appellant’s limited role in the crime and her status as a first offender. The Court also considered that the consequences of a conviction, in terms of the appellant’s future employment prospects, were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The Court noted the appellant’s limited work skills, employment history, and disadvantageous background, and concluded that a conviction would likely have a severe impact on her ability to obtain employment. The Court accepted that the generic consequences of a conviction could be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending where the gravity was low. The dissenting judge considered that the District Court Judge had correctly assessed the offending and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

Orders