Legal Research
Cases
Waharoa v The King

Waharoa v The King

Case [2023] NZHC 3751 18 December 2023

Sentencing

Jurisdiction

Discounts in Sentencing

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2023-442-17

[2023] NZHC 3751

BETWEEN
AARON JAMES WAHAROA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 October 2023

Appearances:

R A Harrison for the Appellant J M Webber for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors
R A Harrison, Barrister, Blenheim O’Donoghue Webber, Nelson

WAHAROA v R [2023] NZHC 3751 [18 December 2023]

What happened?

[1] Mr Aaron Waharoa, aged 47, pleaded guilty to eight offences of burglary, one offence of receiving property worth less than $500, two offences of theft of a motor vehicle, one offence of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, and two offences of theft of goods worth less than $500.1 These offences were committed between December 2019 and March 2020 in Nelson and the Tasman region. He:

(a)stole a backpack from a dwelling in Maybank;

(b)burgled and trashed the Tahunanui Tennis Club;

(c)burgled and ransacked a house in Brightwater and took a vehicle;

(d)took potted plants from a roadside stall in Brightwater;

(e)burgled a building site in Brightwater;

(f)burgled a work yard and office in Annesbrook, taking a vehicle and trailer;

(g)burgled a van belonging to the Nelson Kitchen Studio;

(h)took petrol from the Richmond BP station;

(i)burgled a vehicle belonging to Micro Plumbing;

(j)burgled a campervan in Toi Toi, stole a vehicle, and a horse-float trailer; and

(k)burgled commercial premises of Motor Rewind Specialists.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) (maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment); ss 246 and 247(c) (maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment); ss 219 and 223 (maximum period of seven years’ imprisonment); s 226 (maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment); ss 219 and 223(d) (maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment).

[2] On 2 February 2022, Mr Waharoa received a formal sentencing indication for some of those charges and others, which he declined to accept. He spent two years and three months in custody. He was granted bail to complete a rehabilitation programme in Auckland and was then granted bail with his whānau until his sentencing. He subsequently asked for an informal updated sentencing indication. Judge J E Rielly gave him that indication on 1 June 2023, concluding by stating “the ultimate outcome will most certainly be a term of imprisonment” which would be over two years. He accepted the indication. On 8 September 2023, in the District Court at Nelson, Judge Rielly sentenced Mr Waharoa to three years’ imprisonment:2

(a)She set a starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment for the burglaries, with a nine-month uplift for the other dishonesty offending, for an overall starting point of four years and six months’ imprisonment.3

(b)She noted that Mr Waharoa had rehabilitated extremely well in the community.4 She referred to:

(i)A reference from Man Up, where he completed a programme and remained connected.

(ii)A pre-sentence report by the Department of Corrections which recommended home detention.

(iii)A report on Mr Waharoa’s person background by Ms Shelley Turner under s 27 of the…

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 Waharoa v The King

Details

AGLC: Waharoa v The King [2023] NZHC 3751
Case: [2023] NZHC 3751
Decision Date: 18 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Waharoa v The King, Aaron James Waharoa, the appellant, challenged his sentence imposed by Judge Rielly in the District Court at Nelson. The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges of burglary, theft, and unlawful taking of vehicles and goods. The sentencing judge considered various factors, including the appellant's rehabilitation efforts, addiction issues, and willingness to make reparations to the victims. The judge sentenced the appellant to three years' imprisonment, with certain discounts applied for his rehabilitation and addiction issues. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing methodology was flawed, that insufficient discounts were applied, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The High Court addressed the appellant's arguments, confirming that the sentencing methodology applied by the District Court was correct. The court noted that the judge had followed the principles set out in Moses v R, correctly calculating the adjusted starting point and incorporating mitigating and aggravating factors. The court also found that the discounts applied by the sentencing judge were within the appropriate range, considering the circumstances of the case and the relevant legal principles. The court held that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the seriousness of the offending and the need to balance the interests of the victims and the community.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the application to adduce further evidence was declined. The High Court found no error in the sentencing process and confirmed the three-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders