Tuwhangai v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2020-412-000036

[2020] NZHC 3428

BETWEEN

JAMES TUWHANGAI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 December 2020

Appearances:

M J Scally for Appellant

C J Bernhardt for Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2020


JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J


This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2020 at 12.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date  18 December 2020

Introduction

[1]                 On 17 September 2020 Judge Turner sentenced James Tuwhangai to two years’ imprisonment for strangulation, injuring with intent to injure and threatening to kill. He declined to impose home detention. The Judge also made a protection order in favour of the victim.

[2]Mr Tuwhangai initially appealed his sentence on two grounds:

TUWHANGAI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3428 [18 December 2020]

(a)on the basis of a cultural report under s 27 Sentencing Act 2002 that was not before the District Court for sentencing which he said warranted a reduction of his sentence of between 5–10 per cent;

(b)that his sentence of imprisonment should have been converted to one of home detention on the basis of his youth, remorse and rehabilitative prospects.

He now only pursues the second ground of appeal.

Facts

[3]                 At the time of his violent offending against his partner in January 2020,     Mr Tuwhangai was 18 years old. They had been in a relationship since mid-2019.

[4]                 On 26 January 2020 the pair were together at a family property in Waitahuna near Lawrence. Mr Tuwhangai’s father and several children under 10 were also present. At some point Mr Tuwhangai became upset while examining the victim’s phone because he discovered a photo of the victim together with another man and wrongly assumed it evidence of an intimate liaison. They began to argue.

[5]                 This sparked a verbal and physical attack on the victim over the  course of  six hours.

[6]                 Mr Tuwhangai started to yell at her and throw things about. He punched her in the face several times until she ran from him and he chased her around the property. She called out for someone to call the police. Mr Tuwhangai threw the victim’s phone on the ground, smashing it, and told her she couldn’t call anyone now.

[7]                 Mr Tuwhangai smashed a bedroom window with his hand. He then went outside to the victim’s car and threw objects at it, smashing the windscreen and front windows. He then drove away in her car.

[8]                 He returned shortly afterwards. He wrenched the steering wheel and column from the vehicle, rendering it undriveable. He told the victim she now had no vehicle

and then began to chase her around the property again. He grabbed her around the neck and she called out to Mr Tuwhangai’s father for help. Mr Tuwhangai dragged her to a bed and threw her on it, then punched her to the face and eye. He chased her again.

[9]                 Mr…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tuwhangai v Police 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
[2020] NZHC 3428
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, James Tuwhangai, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, which was two years' imprisonment for strangulation, injuring with intent to injure, and threatening to kill. He argued that his sentence should have been converted to one of home detention on the basis of his youth, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects. The District Court had rejected the submission for home detention on the basis that the appellant had not demonstrated genuine remorse. The Court of Appeal considered the appeal and found that while the appellant's offending was serious, the sentence of imprisonment was inappropriate. The Court considered the appellant's vulnerability to being drawn into gang culture and his risk of embarking on a career of offending. The Court found that the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration needed to be given greater prominence in the sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years' imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of nine months' home detention. The Court imposed special conditions on the home detention, including that the appellant was not to associate with or contact the victim without the prior written approval of a probation officer, and that he was to attend and complete any counselling, treatment, or programme as recommended by the assessment as directed by and to the satisfaction of a probation officer.

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.