IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2020-463-000034
[2020] NZHC 1281
BETWEEN LUCKY TUPARA
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 2 June 2020 Appearances:
S C Abernethy for the Appellant G Banuelos for the Respondent
Judgment:
10 June 2020
JUDGMENT OF MOORE J
This judgment was delivered by me on 10 June 2020 at 3:00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
TUPARA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1281 [10 June 2020]
Introduction
[1] The Police allege that Lucky Tupara brandished and threatened a member of the public with a large imitation knife. He was arrested and charged with offences under the Summary Offences Act 1981 (“the summary offences charges”).
[2] On the morning of Mr Tupara’s fourth appearance more than four months later, the Police laid two further, but comparable, charges under the Crimes Act 1961 (“the Crimes Act charges”). They sought leave to withdraw the summary offences charges. Ms Abernethy, for Mr Tupara, opposed the Police’s application. She indicated Mr Tupara wished to plead guilty to the summary offences charges. She claimed that the laying of the Crimes Act charges amounted to an abuse of the Court’s process and that they should be dismissed or stayed.
[3] Judge G C Hollister-Jones determined there was no abuse of process. He granted the Police’s application for leave. This appeal is brought against that decision.
Alleged offending
[4] The brief summary of facts alleges that shortly before midday on Monday, 13 January 2020 Mr Tupara was in Horomatangi Street, Taupō. He had in his possession a plastic imitation bush knife with a 20 cm blade. He approached the complainant with the knife in his hand, raised it at her in a threatening way while verbally abusing her. The complainant believed Mr Tupara was about to stab her. She retreated and called the Police. The summary is silent as to whether the complainant was known to Mr Tupara.
Procedural history
[5] Mr Tupara was arrested at the scene by the Police. The following morning he appeared in the TaupōDistrict Court before a Justice of the Peace on the summary offences charges, being possession of a knife without reasonable excuse1 and threatening to injure.2 He was granted bail. One of the conditions of bail was that he
1 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment and/or $2,000 fine.
2 Section 21(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment and/or $2,000 fine.
not enter the Taupō CBD. He was remanded without plea to 29 January 2020. On 16 January 2020 he breached his bail when he was found in the Taupō CBD. He was warned and re-admitted to bail. On 18 January 2020 he breached his bail again. He was remanded in custody. On 3 February 2020 he appeared before Judge Snell in the Rotorua District Court. He entered pleas of not guilty to the summary offences charges. However, the Judge made strong comments to the prosecuting sergeant that he believed the…
Continue reading Tupara v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tupara v Police [2020] NZHC 1281
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 1281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Moore J explained that the Court is traditionally reluctant to interfere with prosecutorial decisions, and the Police's decision to review and substitute charges was open to them on the facts. The allegation that the new charges are duplicitous is ill-founded, as there was no material injustice or unfair prejudice to Tupara. The prescribed maximum penalty is not the sole determinant of an appropriate sentence, and the focus should be on the nature of the offending. The Court distinguished this case from Leckey v Attorney-General, as the summary offences charges and the Crimes Act charges are not identical and were not laid in parallel proceedings. The potential for abuse of process discussed in Leckey does not arise in this case.
The Court registers its concern that Tupara remains in custody, with the risk that the time he will spend on remand will exceed any final sentence. However, the appeal is dismissed, and the matter is returned to the District Court for Tupara to enter pleas of guilty and be sentenced, with the probable result of being released on a time served basis. The Police have indicated they would not oppose the imposition of a sentence equivalent to time served.
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.