Te Huna v Police - [2025] NZHC 2110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2025-416-005

[2025] NZHC 2110

BETWEEN
JOSIAH TE HUNA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 July 2025

Appearances:

L J Rishworth for Appellant D V Walker for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Huna was sentenced in the District Court at Gisborne on 1 April 2025, on the following charges:1

(a)burglary (x3);2

(b)theft over $1,000;3

(c)breach of protection order;4

1      New Zealand Police v Tehuna [2025] NZDC 7644 [judgment under appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) — maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b) — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Family Violence Act 2018, s 112(1)(a) — maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

TE HUNA v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2110 [30 July 2025]

(d)driving while suspended (x3);5

(e)theft under $500 (x2);6

(f)driving while forbidden;7 and

(g)failing to answer District Court bail (x2).8

[2] Mr Te Huna pleaded guilty to all charges, except for one charge of burglary, on which he went to trial and was found guilty. He was sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment for the offending. A final protection order was also granted.

[3] Mr Te Huna appeals against the District Court decision on the grounds that the end sentence was manifestly excessive due to insufficient discounts being given for personal mitigating factors, and there was an error of law in granting a protection order as the criteria under s 123B of the Sentencing Act 2002 were not made out. He also applies for an extension of time to bring the appeal.

[4] The Crown submits that the end sentence of imprisonment imposed was within the appropriate range. However, it accepts that there was an error of law in granting the protection order.

Background

[5] The background to the offending, based on the Police summary of facts, is summarised below.

Burglary (x3)

[6] On 28 September 2023, Mr Te Huna asked the complainant, who was known to him, if he could borrow her speaker. She declined. On 29 September, while the

5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(c) and (3) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment,
$4,500 fine; compulsory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for at least six months.
6      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(d) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
7      Land Transport Act, s 52(1)(c) — maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
8      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a) — maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment, $2,000 fine.

complainant was out for the day, Mr Te Huna broke into her house and took a number of items, including two speakers, a hair straightener, a hair dryer, a jacket, a CCTV system, and soft drinks. Mr Te Huna maintained that it was not him who took the items, and proceeded to trial on that charge.

[7] On 17 December 2023, at approximately 7.00 am, Mr Te Huna and an associate accessed…

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 Huna 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: [2025] NZHC 2110
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Josiah Te Huna appeals against his sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment imposed by the District Court for various charges including burglary, theft, and breaching a protection order. The appeal was heard by Grice J in the High Court at Gisborne. Mr Te Huna contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to insufficient discounts for personal mitigating factors and that there was an error of law in granting a protection order. The Crown accepts that there was an error in granting the protection order but argues that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court examined the starting point for sentencing, which was three years and two months' imprisonment. The Crown argued for a higher starting point, but the court found it within an acceptable range. The court also considered the discounts given for personal mitigating factors, which included Mr Te Huna's youth, methamphetamine addiction, and rehabilitative prospects. Ms Rishworth, for the appellant, argued that a higher discount was warranted, citing relevant case law and comparable cases. The court agreed that a 20% discount for personal circumstances was appropriate, resulting in a revised sentence of one year and 11 months' imprisonment. Additionally, the court found an error of law in the District Court's decision to grant a protection order without meeting the statutory criteria.

The appeal is allowed. The sentence is reduced to one year and 11 months' imprisonment, with standard and special release conditions. The protection order is set aside.

Orders