Vaipapalangi v The King - [2025] NZHC 1921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000198 CRI-2025-404-000199 [2025] NZHC 1921

BETWEEN PAULA VAIPAPALANGI
Appellant

AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing: 14 July 2025

Appearances: M Taylor-Cyphers on behalf of A Ives for Appellant R van Boheemen for Respondent

Judgment: 14 July 2025

Reasons: 14 July 2025

Reissued: 17 July 2025

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 July 2025 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: A Ives, Barrister, Auckland

VAIPAPALANGI v R [2025] NZHC 1921 [14 July 2025]

[1] Paula Vaipapalangi pleaded guilty to charges of burglary and demanding with intent to steal; possession of an offensive weapon; refusing a request to give blood (third and subsequent) and driving while suspended (third and subsequent). Judge P J Sinclair sentenced Mr Vaipapalangi to imprisonment for a period of 29½ months.1 Mr Vaipapalangi appeals against sentence.

[2] At the conclusion of the appeal hearing I dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

Background

[3]I take the summary of facts from the Judge’s sentencing notes:

[3] The summary of facts for the burglary and demanding with intent to steal are as follows. Mr Vaipapalangi, you are a patched member of the Head Hunters motorcycle gang and Mr Astle, you were a prospect at the time of the offending.

[4] On 10 June 2023, Mr Vaipapalangi, you arranged for Mr Astle and another unidentified person to go to the Desire Love Motel, a brothel in Hillcrest. Later that day in the evening, Mr Astle, you and an associate arrived at the motel wearing disguises and armed with a baseball bat. You entered the building and rang the door buzzer on an internal door and demanded to speak to the owner pointing the bat at one of the employees. The employee opened the door, and you and your associate walked past her and began to smash the front room of the business using the baseball bat. You took turns with your associate going behind the bar and front counter to damage and destroy bottles of alcohol, the cash register, drink coolers, computers, a mirror, and the bar area in general. Your associates told the employee that they had to pay the Head Hunters’ patch. As you and your associate left, you smashed two large glass panels at the front door of the motel.

[5] Mr Vaipapalangi, analysis of your phone seized during a search of your address located a Snapchat screenshot of the Desire Love Motel business card, together with a caption “all done Doco”, and referred to the owner’s number and that the motel had been smashed.

[6] On 13 June 2023, staff members at the motel began to receive a series of threatening phone calls from both of you and/or your associates. On 23 June, Mr Astle, you called Frederico Ronnau’s mobile number and arranged…

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 Vaipapalangi v The King

Details

AGLC: Vaipapalangi v The King [2025] NZHC 1921
Case: [2025] NZHC 1921
Decision Date: 14 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paula Vaipapalangi appealed against his sentence for multiple charges, including burglary, demanding with intent to steal, possession of an offensive weapon, and driving while suspended. The District Court had sentenced him to 29½ months of imprisonment. Vaipapalangi argued that the District Court erred in setting too high a starting point for the burglary and demanding with menaces offences, and in not sufficiently crediting mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The appeal hinged on whether the District Court's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the starting point and discounts applied were appropriate.

The High Court found that Vaipapalangi's role as the instigator of the offending, using his status within the Head Hunters gang, warranted a high starting point. The court noted that although Vaipapalangi was not physically present during the burglary, he directed the actions of Mr Astle, who carried out the actual burglary. The court also considered the seriousness of the offending, including the use of a weapon and the gang context, which supported a starting point in the region of four to four and a half years. Despite the appellant's submissions that the starting point should have been lower and the discounts higher, the court found the overall sentence of 29½ months was well within the appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders