Wanahi v Police - [2025] NZHC 2997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2025-443-37

[2025] NZHC 2997

C J WANAHI

v

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 9 October 2025

Appearances:

C A Silk for Appellant

P M Lange for Respondent

Judgment:

10 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] On 28 July 2025, CJ Wanahi was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment1 on charges of assault on a person in a family relationship,2 breach of protection order,3 burglary,4 theft,5 wilful damage,6 and escaping custody.7 Mr Wanahi appeals that decision on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. Mr Wanahi’s counsel, Caroline Silk, argues that the Judge adopted an excessive starting point and

1      New Zealand Police v Wanahi [2025] NZDC 18051 [Decision under appeal].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A; maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
3      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 9, 90(a) and 112(1)(a); maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
5      Sections 219 and 223(d) ($500 or less); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
6      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a); maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.
7      Crimes Act, s 120; maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

WANAHI v POLICE [2025] NZHC 2997 [10 October 2025]

gave insufficient allowance for the totality of Mr Wanahi’s offending, his guilty plea, remorse, efforts to rehabilitate and background. Ms Silk suggests that the end sentence should be 19.5 months, or at least less than two years’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Wanahi has been in custody for one year. As a result, the appeal will result in his immediate release if successful in bringing the sentence to two years’ imprisonment or less. Home detention is accordingly not sought.

Background

Offending

[3] The bulk of Mr Wanahi’s offending took place on Sunday, 4 August 2024. At roughly 8.40 am that morning, he climbed the locked front gate of the yard for Kiwi Lumber Ltd and took items worth about $100: cans of spray paint, two work shirts and a pair of work gloves. He used one of the cans of spray paint to graffiti a shipping container in the yard.

[4] The family violence charges also arose that day. Mr Wanahi and the victim of the offending had been in a romantic relationship for approximately four years before separating. They have one young child together. There is a protection order against Mr Wanahi in the victim’s favour that was issued on 10 August 2022. On 4 August 2024, Mr Wanahi was at the victim’s home address and refused to leave, in breach of the protection order. He had not been invited to the address by the victim. Mr Wanahi then jabbed the victim in the right eye with his finger. He later left the address.

[5] The charge of escaping police custody arose on 2 September 2024, when police officers attempted to arrest Mr Wanahi in connection with family harm…

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 Wanahi v Police

Details

AGLC: Wanahi v Police [2025] NZHC 2997
Case: [2025] NZHC 2997
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gwyn J heard the appeal of CJ Wanahi against his sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment on various charges. Mr Wanahi argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. His counsel, Caroline Silk, contended that the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge was too high and insufficient allowance was made for the totality of Mr Wanahi’s offending, his guilty plea, remorse, efforts to rehabilitate, and background. Ms Silk suggested a sentence of 19.5 months, or at least less than two years’ imprisonment. The appeal court considered the legal issues of whether the starting point was excessive, whether the Judge was required to align with the victim’s views, and whether there were sufficient discounts applied.

The court held that the starting point was excessive as it did not consider the totality of Mr Wanahi’s offending. The court found that the maximum available starting point should have been 25 months, rather than the 37 months imposed by the sentencing Judge. The court also found that there was no requirement for the Judge to align with the victim’s views, and that there were no errors in the application of discounts for the guilty plea, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, or background.

The court allowed the appeal, finding the sentence manifestly excessive. It substituted the sentence imposed with a sentence of one year and nine months’ imprisonment, which is time served. The court imposed release conditions requiring Mr Wanahi to attend any assessment for any suitable programme, including a non-violence programme, as directed by a probation officer, and to attend and complete any counselling, treatment, or programme as recommended by the assessment and/or as directed by and to the satisfaction of a probation officer. The standard release conditions also apply.

Orders