Te Huia v Police - [2016] NZHC 758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-483-3 [2016] NZHC 758

BETWEEN
ANTHONY LOUIS TE HUIA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 20 April 2016

Counsel:

S J Burlace for D M Goodlet for Appellant
N A Refoy-Butler for Respondent

Judgment:

21 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
3.30 pm on the 21st day of April 2016

TE HUIA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 758 [21 April 2016]

[1] Mr Te Huia appeals his sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment for:1

(a) two charges of male assaults female (maximum penalty two years’

imprisonment);

(b)one charge of assault with intent to injure (maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment); and

(c) one charge of failing to answer bail (maximum penalty three months’

imprisonment).

[2] Mr Te Huia pleaded guilty to these charges.

The facts

The male assaults female charges

[3] On 8 March 2015 Mr Te Huia was at his home with his partner, mother, sister and son. He got into an argument with his partner. His mother intervened by getting between them. Mr Te Huia grabbed his mother’s arm and held it behind her back, while using his other arm to hold her across the chest. After letting her go he grabbed his partner by her feet to try to drag her out from behind his mother. He then grabbed his mother, pulled her backwards, threw her to the ground and pinned her down.

[4] Mr Te Huia’s sister entered the room and attempted to pull him off their mother. He punched his sister, grazing her lip, and then threw her on the couch. He was shouting and swearing throughout. He stopped and attempted to leave. His mother tried to get to his car first, to remove his keys. He pushed past her, grabbed the keys and left shortly afterwards.

The assault with intent to injure charge

[5] On 17 July 2015, while on bail for the assaults on his family members, Mr Te Huia was on a bus when he was asked by a bus driver to turn off the music he

1 New Zealand Police v Te Huia [2016] NZDC 3486.

was playing loudly on his phone. The driver refused to drive the bus until the music had stopped. Mr Te Huia verbally abused the driver and once the bus had arrived at the next bus stop he challenged the driver to a fight and attacked him while he was still seated. Mr Te Huia punched the driver in the head using both fists approximately 10 times. The driver was pinned in his seat and unable to escape or defend himself. Mr Te Huia was pulled off the bus driver and removed from the bus, while continuing to verbally abuse the driver. He was difficult to control when police arrived. The bus driver suffered a bleeding nose and sore head.

Failing to answer bail

[6] Mr Te Huia failed to appear in the Rotorua Court on 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Te Huia 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 758
Decision Date: 21 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Te Huia appealed his sentence of 21 months' imprisonment for multiple charges, including two counts of male assaults female, one count of assault with intent to injure, and one count of failing to answer bail. The District Court had taken as the lead offence the assault with intent to injure charge, which involved Mr Te Huia attacking a bus driver while on bail. The Court had imposed a starting point of 18 months for this offence and added six months for each of the male assaults female charges, concurrent with each other but cumulative on the index sentence. The Court had also added one month for failing to answer bail and gave a discount of four months for the guilty plea, resulting in an end sentence of 21 months. The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the 18-month starting point for the assault with intent to injure charge was within range, given the aggravating factors, and that a strong deterrent message was called for where those such as bus or taxi drivers were attacked while doing their jobs. The Court also noted that the male assaults female charges occurred in a domestic context, against close family members, and that there were two quite discrete incidents, unlike in previous cases. Although Mr Te Huia had taken some important rehabilitative steps, the Court was of the view that he was only able to do so because of the delays in the sentencing process.

The legal issues in the appeal were whether the Judge erred in the starting point for the lead offence, whether the Judge erred in not discounting for the restorative justice process, and whether the totality was not correctly considered. The High Court found that the starting point for the lead offence was not erroneous, as the 18-month starting point for the assault with intent to injure charge was within range. The Court also found that the restorative justice process did not warrant a reduction in the sentence, as it only involved one of the victims (not Mr Te Huia's sister) and that even if a one-month reduction were appropriately given, the effect on the end sentence would be no more than tinkering. Finally, the Court found that the totality was correctly considered, as the 21-month end sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the aggravating factors and the need for a strong deterrent message.

Orders