IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE
CRI-2020-443-20
[2020] NZHC 2555
ETHAN PAUL TITO-FURZE v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Hearing: 25 September 2020 via AVL Appearances:
J C Hannam for Appellant
J E Bourke and L A Blencowe for Respondent
Judgment:
30 September 2020
JUDGMENT OF CLARK J
[1]Mr Tito-Furze was sentenced in the District Court on the following charges:1
(a)two charges of driving recklessly causing injury,2
(b)two charges of operating a motor vehicle recklessly,3
(c)one charge of failure to remain stopped for an enforcement officer,4
(d)one charge of failing to stop for red/blue flashing lights,5
1 New Zealand Police v Tito-Furze [2020] NZDC 15437 [Sentencing Notes].
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(a), maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine.
3 Section 35(1)(a), maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine.
4 Section 52A(1)(b), maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
5 Section 52A(1)(a)(ii), maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
TITO-FURZE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2555 [30 September 2020]
(e)one charge of obstructing a medical officer of health,6
(f)one charge of breaching prison release conditions.7
[2]Mr Tito-Furze appeals his sentence of two years, two months’ imprisonment.
Facts
[3] Mr Tito-Furze is 39 years of age. He has numerous convictions but has not had driving convictions since 2015 when he was convicted of driving while suspended.
[4] At the time of the offending, New Zealand was in a state of national emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Alert level four was in place nationwide. Travel and movement were limited substantially. Mr Tito-Furze had been warned by Police for breaches of the Ministry of Health guidelines. On 17 April 2020 he was arrested but released from custody on a pre-charge warning for breaching the guidelines.
[5] On the evening of Saturday 25 April, Mr Tito-Furze was stopped for speeding. When asked why he was out during alert level four he said he was getting stamps and envelopes so he could send a letter to his partner in prison. The officer said he was going to issue a non-operation order in relation to the vehicle and asked Mr Tito-Furze to turn off the ignition. He became argumentative and refused to comply. The officer reached into the driver’s window and grabbed hold of the keys at which point there was a brief struggle over the keys. When Mr Tito-Furze noticed the arrival of another police unit he reversed a short distance while the officer was still holding onto the keys and then drove forward. The officer broke free and moved out of the car’s path to avoid harm.
[6] Mr Tito-Furze then travelled east on the state highway before performing a U- turn and accelerating at speed on the wrong side of the road. A patrol car activated flashing lights and followed Mr Tito-Furze in an effort to stop him. He refused to stop and continued to travel at high speed into the path of several oncoming cars. The
6 Health Act 1956,…
- AGLC
- Tito-Furze v Police [2020] NZHC 2555
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 2555
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the District Court appropriately considered the mitigating factors, including genuine remorse and cultural background, in sentencing Tito-Furze. The High Court found that while the District Court had considered the cultural report, the eight percent discount for mitigating factors was insufficient given the severity of the offending and the evidence of systemic deprivation.
The Court noted that genuine remorse and cultural factors could justify a discount of up to 33 percent, and found that the eight percent discount was inadequate. The Court also found that the cultural report provided sufficient evidence of systemic deprivation that contributed to the offending. Accordingly, the Court substituted the sentence with one year and ten months' imprisonment, with a six-month disqualification from driving. The Court also ordered that Tito-Furze engage with a Whānau Ora Service or a Māori focus programme within six months of release.
In summary, the High Court allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to one year and ten months' imprisonment, finding that the District Court had not sufficiently accounted for the mitigating factors in the original sentence. The Court also ordered that Tito-Furze engage with support services upon release.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.