Te Puni v Police - [2019] NZHC 762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

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

CRI-2019-416-4

[2019] NZHC 762

BETWEEN
TALON TE PUNI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing via AVL: 9 April 2019

Counsel:

M Mitchell for Appellant N Wright for Respondent

Judgment:

9 April 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Puni appeals against the sentence of 13½ months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Cathcart in the Gisborne District Court on 28 February 2019.1 Mr Te Puni’s sentence was imposed on one charge of injuring with intent to injure.2

[2] Counsel for Mr Te Puni, Mrs Wright, submits that the sentence should be quashed, and a sentence of home detention be imposed, if Mr Te Puni is able to provide a suitable address.

1 New Zealand Police v Te Puni [2019] NZDC 3842. He was also sentenced to one month imprisonment on one charge of breaching bail, to be served concurrently.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2) [maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment].

TE PUNI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 762 [9 April 2019]

Factual background

[3] On 2 June 2018, the victim, Mr Crawford, was socialising with friends at an address not far from where Mr Te Puni was celebrating his cousin’s birthday. Mr Crawford and Mr Te Puni did not know each other. At approximately 8pm, Mr Crawford decided to walk to another friend’s house a few streets away. He crossed paths with two young men standing outside a party; one of these men was Mr Te Puni. Mr Te Puni yelled out to Mr Crawford, and he stopped to speak with the young men in the middle of the intersection on the road.

[4] As Mr Crawford stood there talking to Mr Te Puni and his associate, Mr Te Puni, without warning, using his entire body weight, punched Mr Crawford in the face. It was described as a “king-hit” and has been accepted by Mrs Wright as being appropriately so described.

[5] Mr Crawford was hit so hard that witnesses described him as falling straight backwards with his arms at his sides onto the road. As he hit the ground, he lay there not moving and began making noises described by the witnesses as snoring sounds. Blood began coming from his nose and ears; he was unconscious.

[6] Although it has been asserted by Mrs Wright that there is a possible reconciliation between the contents of the summary of fact which records that after hitting Mr Crawford, Mr Te Puni stopped and put him in the recovery position, and the alternative evidence that was before the Court in the summary of fact that he simply walked away, this Court is bound by the summary of fact. It does not appear that there was any challenge to that summary of fact in the Court, and it clearly says that after the assault Mr Te Puni went back to the party and it was the passers-by who came to the assistance…

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 Puni 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: [2019] NZHC 762
Decision Date: 9 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Talon Te Puni appeals against a sentence of 13½ months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Cathcart in the Gisborne District Court on 28 February 2019. Mr Te Puni was convicted of injuring with intent to injure and breaching bail. Mr Te Puni was sentenced to 13½ months’ imprisonment on the first charge and a concurrent sentence of one month imprisonment on the second charge. Counsel for Mr Te Puni submits that the sentence should be quashed and a sentence of home detention be imposed if Mr Te Puni is able to provide a suitable address. The court found that the appeal should be dismissed. The court identified the key differences between the offending of Mr Te Puni and the offending in R v Feleti. The court found that the differences between the offending and personal circumstances were significant enough that the sentence in Mr Te Puni’s case was not irreconcilable with the sentence in Mr Feleti’s case. The court found that, while home detention could satisfy the objectives of deterrence and denunciation, it was a matter of judgment for the sentencing Judge to determine whether home detention was an adequate response to the seriousness of the offending.

Orders