Tuhiwai v The King - [2025] NZHC 2315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-488-82

[2025] NZHC 2315

BETWEEN
MAYLEEN JUNE TUHIWAI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:
7 August 2025 (further submissions received on 11 and 13 August

2025)

Appearances:

J A Young for Appellant P Hamber for Respondent

Judgment:

15 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 15 August 2025 at 11.00 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei J A Young, Whangarei

TUHIWAI v R [2025] NZHC 2315 [15 August 2025]

[1] Ms Tuhiwai pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.1 On 10 July 2025, Judge G A Andrée Wiltens sentenced her to 18 months imprisonment.2

[2] Ms Tuhiwai appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge failed to consider granting her leave to apply for the sentence to be converted to home detention.

The offending

[3] The charge was laid as a result of actions taken by Ms Tuhiwai to assist her son, who faced charges in the District Court involving allegations of family violence against his then partner. Those charges had resulted in her son being remanded in custody.

[4] Ms Tuhiwai received a telephone call from her son on 28 February 2024 in which he asked her to contact his partner. He wanted Ms Tuhiwai to ask his partner to draw up an affidavit in which she confirmed that she wished the charges against him to be withdrawn. He asked Ms Tuhiwai to file the affidavit in the District Court. This conversation was recorded as a matter of routine given that Ms Tuhiwai’s son made it from the correctional facility in which he was being held on remand.

[5] On 12 March 2024, Ms Tuhiwai’s son called her again. On this occasion he asked her to call the police and request that they drop the charges. She agreed to do so. She also told her son that she had already spoken to his partner and asked her to withdraw the charges. Ms Tuhiwai’s son then said, “Well make sure that she says it was a false statement, that she was angry and needed time away”. This conversation was also recorded on the prison telephone monitoring system.

[6] On 18 March 2025, Ms Tuhiwai’s son telephoned her again. She told him she was taking his partner to the police station the next day to have the charges withdrawn. Ms Tuhiwai’s son then said, “Take her to the victim support people and write an affidavit saying she was angry and needed space”.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 116.
2 R v Tuhiwai [2025] NZDC 15422.

[7] On the following day, Ms Tuhiwai took her son’s partner to the police station at Whangārei. There, Ms Tuhiwai spoke to counter staff about the process that needed to be followed to have the charges withdrawn. The counter staff responded by…

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 Tuhiwai v The King 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 2315
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mayleen June Tuhiwai has appealed against her 18-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge G A Andrée Wiltens in the Whangarei District Court for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The appeal focuses on the contention that the Judge failed to consider granting her leave to apply for the sentence to be converted to home detention under Section 80I of the Sentencing Act 2002. The legal issue at hand was whether the Judge should have considered granting Ms Tuhiwai leave to apply for the sentence to be converted to home detention despite her lack of a suitable address at the time of sentencing. The Court found that the Judge had indeed considered the available sentencing options and concluded that imprisonment was the only appropriate outcome due to the serious nature of the offending. The Court also held that the Judge's refusal to grant Ms Tuhiwai leave to apply for the sentence to be converted to home detention did not constitute an error, as the aggravating features of the offending warranted a deterrent sentence of imprisonment.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders