Teulilo v Police - [2017] NZHC 2072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2017-404-000215 [2017] NZHC 2072

BETWEEN
LEONARD TEULILO

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 21 August 2017

Appearances:

K G Scott for the Appellant
M B Breckon for the Respondent

Judgment:

29 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on 29 August 2017 at 11.15 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Auckland
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

TEULILO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2072 [29 August 2017]

Summary

[1] Mr Leonard Teulilo appeals from his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment for eight offences including theft, aggravated assault, dishonestly using a document, escaping lawful custody and obstruction of a police officer. I uphold the appeal and reduce the sentence to 20 months, which is the result the sentencing judge’s logic would have led to, if not for a mathematical miscalculation. I do not uphold the appeal in any other respect.

Facts

[2] On 9 June 2017 Mr Leonard Teulilo, age 29, was convicted of eight offences in the District Court at Auckland. He was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment. The offences were committed on three occasions.

[3] On 1 October 2015 Mr Teulilo snatched a handbag at a bus stop in Papatoetoe from a woman who chased him. He got into a Toyota RAV4 and drove at the woman, running over her foot. She suffered bruising, swelling, grazing to her foot, knee and hand. Later that day he tried to use her debit card. For this Mr Teulilo was convicted of:

(a) theft, carrying a maximum of three months’ imprisonment;1

(b) aggravated assault carrying a maximum of three years’

imprisonment;2 and

(c) dishonestly using a document, carrying a maximum of seven years’

imprisonment.3

[4] On 24 February 2016 Mr Teulilo was stopped by the police while driving a car on the Southern Motorway in Grafton, Auckland. He was informed he was under arrest for other offending and told to remain in the car. But he and his partner ran
away. The police gave chase and told Mr Teulilo to stop. He turned and advanced

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 192(1)(c).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b).

on the police officer who drew a taser and detained Mr Teulilo. For this he was convicted of escaping lawful custody, carrying a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.4

[5] On 3 March 2017 Mr Teulilo was approached by police officers while he was parked in a car in a carpark. Mr Teulilo reversed his car, ignored directions to stop and attempted to drive forward. The officers attempted to seize control of the car keys which Mr Teulilo resisted. The officers threatened to, and then did, pepper spray him. He started the car, drove out of the carpark, hitting another car. The police, with flashing lights, pursued Mr Teulilo who failed to stop and eventually hit another car opposite the Otahuhu Police…

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 Teulilo v Police

Details

AGLC: Teulilo v Police [2017] NZHC 2072
Case: [2017] NZHC 2072
Decision Date: 29 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Leonard Teulilo against his sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment for eight offences, including theft, aggravated assault, dishonestly using a document, escaping lawful custody, and obstruction of a police officer, was heard by Palmer J. The District Court had convicted Teulilo on 9 June 2017 and sentenced him to 22 months’ imprisonment. The court was tasked with reviewing the sentence for any errors and determining whether a different sentence should be imposed.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge had erred in calculating the total sentence and if any mitigating factors warranted a different sentence. Teulilo's counsel argued that the judge had made a mathematical error in calculating the sentence, resulting in an extra two months of imprisonment. They further contended that Teulilo should have received discounts for remorse, rehabilitation, and family circumstances. The Crown, on the other hand, agreed that there was a mathematical error but argued that the judge had appropriately considered the personal mitigating factors and was correct in not imposing a sentence of home detention.

The court found that there was indeed a mathematical error in the sentence calculation. The addition of two months, two months, and four months to the 18-month starting point should have resulted in a sentence of 26 months rather than 28. Therefore, after applying the six-month discount for a guilty plea, the appropriate sentence would be 20 months’ imprisonment. However, the court did not find that any discount for remorse, rehabilitation, or family circumstances was warranted, and it upheld the judge's refusal to impose a sentence of home detention, concluding that imprisonment was necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing.

The court upheld the appeal in part, reducing the sentence to 20 months’ imprisonment. It set aside the District Court’s sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment and imposed a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment instead.

Orders