Tuporo v The King - [2025] NZHC 1137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000014

[2025] NZHC 1137

BETWEEN
GABRIEL TUPORO

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 May 2025

Counsel:

H N Kim for Appellant

N C Vaughan for Respondent

Judgment:

13 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 May 2025 at 11 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Han Na Kim (Manukau) for Appellant
Kayes Fletcher Walker (Manukau) for Respondent

TUPORO v R [2025] NZHC 1137 [13 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Tuporo appeals the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge S Patel on 16 December 2024.1 He submits the sentence is manifestly excessive in that the Judge adopted too high a starting point and did not sufficiently discount the sentence for Mr Tuporo’s personal circumstances.

[2] I must allow Mr Tuporo’s appeal if I find there to be an error in his sentence such that a different sentence should be imposed.2 If I find his sentence to be manifestly excessive then that is an error which must be corrected.

Background

[3]I take the background events from the Judge’s sentencing notes:

[4] The facts that I sentence you on are these. You are the de facto brother-in-law of Mr Waipouri. Mr Waipouri had been in a relationship with your sister for about eight years. He and your sister have been involved in several family harm incidents in the past. I understand, there was an incident involving Mr Waipouri and your sister subsequent to your offending which led to Mr Waipouri spending time in custody.

[5] You were the registered owner of a Suzuki Swift vehicle. The circumstances of the offending are that around 6.30 on 24 December 2023, you drove your vehicle north on Hills Road in Ōtara. You saw Mr Waipouri walking along Hills Road. You performed a U-turn and stopped the car near Mr Waipouri. You then confronted him about family harm matters involving your sister. You then pursued Mr Waipouri on foot to try and engage physically with him, swearing and yelling at him. Mr Waipouri said to you: “What do you think you’re doing?” and in response, you threatened to stab him with a pocketknife that you were holding.

[6] You then approached Mr Waipouri aggressively while holding the pocketknife. He ran and sought safety in a nearby shop. He told staff there about your threats to stab him.

[7] You returned to your car and parked it outside the shop where he was. You yelled into the superette: “Come out! Come out!” After about 20 seconds, you shouted: “You wait! I’ll get you!” and then you drove away.

[8] A short time later, you drove your car along Hills Road. You saw Mr Waipouri walking on the footpath. He was facing away from your car. You accelerated the car, crossed over to the wrong side of the road, and drove onto the footpath. You hit Mr Waipouri…

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 Tuporo v The King

Details

AGLC: Tuporo v The King [2025] NZHC 1137
Case: [2025] NZHC 1137
Decision Date: 13 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gabriel Tuporo appeals against the two years and two months’ imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge S Patel on 16 December 2024. Tuporo contends the sentence is manifestly excessive, arguing that the Judge adopted too high a starting point and did not sufficiently discount the sentence for his personal circumstances. The appeal raises issues of the appropriateness of the starting point, the extent of discount for mitigating factors, and the overall appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The Court must determine whether the sentence is manifestly excessive, requiring a correction. The facts of the case involve a serious incident where Tuporo drove his vehicle into his sister’s former partner, Mr Waipouri, causing critical injuries. Tuporo had a history of antagonism towards Mr Waipouri due to alleged family harm. The Court found the starting point of four years and six months’ imprisonment for the charge of wounding with intent to injure was within the range available to the Judge. The Court considered the use of the car as a weapon and the seriousness of the injury caused to Mr Waipouri as significant aggravating factors. The Court also noted that while Tuporo did not extensively plan the attack, he did have an intention to harm Mr Waipouri. The Judge's discounts for pleas of guilty, remorse, and good character were deemed adequate, though the Court suggests a slightly lower discount for the plea might have been appropriate. The Court concluded that the end sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment was appropriate given the totality of the offending and Tuporo's personal circumstances. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Orders