Wereta v Police - [2023] NZHC 629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-485

[2023] NZHC 629

BETWEEN
RAWIRI WERETA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 20 March 2023

Appearances:

M R Douglas for Appellant

H R Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 27 March 2023 at 3.00 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
M R Douglas, Tauranga
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

RAWIRI WERETA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 629 [27 March 2023]

Introduction

[1] After entering guilty pleas to two charges—one of assault with intent to injure and the other of injuring with intent to injure—the appellant, Rawiri Wereta, was sentenced by Judge Bonnar KC in the District Court at North Shore to two years and three months’ imprisonment.1

[2] Mr Wereta appeals his sentence, arguing that it is manifestly excessive. He says that:

(a)the starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment adopted by the Judge for the lead charge of injuring with intent to injure was too high; and

(b)a three month reduction for totality allowed by the Judge was insufficient, given that the sentence is to be served as a cumulative sentence.

[3] The respondent opposes the appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the police that the starting point adopted was within the available range and that the reduction for totality made by the Judge was sufficient. As a result, it is said that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The offending

[4]I gratefully adopt the Judge’s summary of the relevant facts:

…

[2] Dealing with the facts. First, the assault with intent to injure of Corrections Officer Duffield. As everyone knows, you are a sentenced prisoner at Auckland Prison. Mr Duffield is a Corrections Officer. On the afternoon of 2 November, Mr Duffield was a member of a team escorting you back to your cell. You were searched by a Corrections Officer. Once that search was complete, without provocation or warning, you struck out with your fists and punched Mr Duffield in the face. You then stood in the corner of the landing and were restrained by Corrections staff. The summary tells me Mr Duffield sustained a neck sprain, jaw sprain and open wounds on his lip. You exercised your right not to comment.

1 Police v Wereta [2022] NZDC 24409.

[3] The offence of injuring Mr Dansey follows a similar pattern. On the morning of 5 May 2022 you were being unlocked from your cell by Mr Dansey and other Corrections Officers. You stepped out of your cell, turned quickly towards Mr Dansey and punched him twice in the face with extreme force. You were then restrained by other officers but resisted. Mr Dansey sustained a broken jaw which required surgery. He also sustained a concussion which has resulted in ongoing issues for him. Again, you declined to comment.

[4]…

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 Wereta v Police

Details

AGLC: Wereta v Police [2023] NZHC 629
Case: [2023] NZHC 629
Decision Date: 27 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Rawiri Wereta, appealed his sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment, imposed by Judge Bonnar in the District Court at North Shore, following his guilty pleas to charges of assault with intent to injure and injuring with intent to injure. The appellant argued that the starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment for the lead charge was too high and that a three-month reduction for totality was insufficient. The respondent, New Zealand Police, opposed the appeal, asserting that the starting point was within the available range and that the reduction for totality was sufficient. The court considered the seriousness of the offending, the aggravating factors, and the totality principle. It concluded that the starting point was within the range and that the reduction for totality was adequate. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders