Waaka v The King - [2025] NZHC 2851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-64

[2025] NZHC 2851

BETWEEN
NGARIKI WAAKA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 10 September 2025

Appearances:

C Hardy for Appellant K Dillon for Respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2025 at 10.30 am.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Hamilton Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

WAAKA v R [2025] NZHC 2851 [30 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Waaka appeals against a sentence of four years and one month’s imprisonment imposed by Judge N R Dawson in the District Court at Hamilton on 20 May 2025.1 The charges in respect of which Mr Waaka was sentenced were:

(a)one charge of injuring with intent to injure;2

(b)19 charges of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent);3

(c)18 charges of theft of property not exceeding $500 in value;4

(d)three charges of theft of property exceeding $500 in value but not exceeding $1,000 in value;5

(e)one charge of aggravated injury;6

(f)one charge of burglary;7

(g)one charge of possessing goods capable of being used to facilitate crimes involving dishonesty with intent;8

(h)one charge of breach of conditions of intensive supervision;9 and

1      New Zealand Police v Waaka [2025] NZDC 10999.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or $6,000 fine. The Court must also order disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for at least one year.
4      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment. Section 66(a) was also engaged in respect of some of the offences.
5      Crimes Act, s 219 and 223(c); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, s 191(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
7      Crimes Act, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act, s 228C; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment. I note that Mr Waaka would have been charged under the version of the Crimes Act that was in force as at 13 April 2023, and the relevant legislative reference in the current version of the Act is s 239C.
9      Sentencing Act 2002, s 70A(a); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or $1,500 fine.

(i)one charge of breach of conditions of community work.10

[2] Mr Waaka submits that the sentence imposed by the Judge is manifestly excessive. His grounds of appeal include claims that:

(a)the Judge imposed a starting point that is too high in respect of the injuring with intent to injure charge;

(b)the Judge made an error of fact in identifying the victim of the aggravated injury as an “elderly male” and treating this as an aggravating feature in relation to that charge;

(c)the Judge adopted a previous sentence indication that had been declined, without having regard to the submissions made and information available at sentencing;

(d)the Judge referred to the summaries of facts for three charges that had been withdrawn;

(e)the Judge…

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 Waaka v The King

Details

AGLC: Waaka v The King [2025] NZHC 2851
Case: [2025] NZHC 2851
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ngariki Waaka appeals against the sentence of four years and one month’s imprisonment imposed by the District Court at Hamilton, arguing that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The Crown opposes the appeal, contending that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the starting point adopted and reductions applied were within the available range. The Court must determine whether there was an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed. The Court found that the starting point for the injuring with intent to injure charge was appropriate, considering the aggravating features such as the attack to the head, the vulnerability of the victim, and the imbalance of power. The Court also found that the uplifts applied for the other charges were within the available range, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders