Legal Research
Cases
Wharepapa v The King

Wharepapa v The King

Case [2025] NZCA 308 9 July 2025

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA673/2024
[2025] NZCA 308

BETWEEN	RONALD SYDNEY WHAREPAPA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	20 May 2025
Court:	Mallon, Jagose and Grice JJ
Counsel:	R M Gould for Appellant T C Didsbury and M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	9 July 2025 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to adduce further evidence is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Grice J)

Introduction

Ronald Wharepapa was convicted by a jury on five charges of assault with a weapon,[1] including one representative charge, and six charges of assault on a person in a family relationship,[2] two of which were representative. He was sentenced in the District Court at Napier on 8 October 2024 to three years and two months’ imprisonment.[3]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 202C — maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
[2] Crimes Act, s 194A — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
[3]R v Wharepapa [2024] NZDC 24620 [judgment under appeal].
Mr Wharepapa appeals against that sentence on the grounds that the starting point was too high and insufficient discounts were given for deprivation and disadvantage, resulting in an end sentence that was manifestly excessive.[4] In particular, he says the Judge did not adequately take into account the contribution of his methamphetamine addiction to the offending. He contends that a two-year term of imprisonment with release conditions to address his alcohol and drug dependency would have been more appropriate.

Background

[4]The appellant initially sought to bring an appeal against conviction in addition to the sentence appeal, however that has since been abandoned.

At trial, Mr Wharepapa was found guilty of 11 of the 16 charges he faced and acquitted of five. The offending is summarised below.
Mr Wharepapa was in an intimate relationship with the complainant. He regularly assaulted her, including with weapons, over the period of their 10-month relationship. On one occasion he tied her to a pole and gagged her so that she could not escape, before assaulting her. The complainant went to a Women’s Refuge and gave a police evidential video interview, however later retracted her allegations. She continued to deny her initial allegations when giving evidence at trial.

District Court decision

Judge Earwaker referred to the need to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. He said there was “primarily” a need to hold Mr Wharepapa accountable for the harm done to the complainant.[5] The Judge also noted that there needed to be a “punishment side to the sentencing”, in order to denounce Mr Wharepapa’s conduct and stop others from committing similar offences.[6] In addition, Mr Wharepapa’s remorse and rehabilitative prospects,[7] as well as the seriousness of his offending,[8] were relevant considerations.
[5]Judgment under appeal, above n 3, at [8].
[6]At [8].
[7]At [9].
[8]At [10].
The aggravating features of the offending put forward by the Crown included the use of weapons, the scale of the offending, the fact…

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 Wharepapa v The King

Details

AGLC: Wharepapa v The King [2025] NZCA 308
Case: [2025] NZCA 308
Decision Date: 9 July 2025 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Sydney Wharepapa appeals his sentence imposed by the District Court for a series of assaults, including those with a weapon, against his former partner. He argues that the starting point was too high and that insufficient discounts were applied for his deprivation and disadvantage, resulting in an end sentence that is manifestly excessive. The appeal court first considered the appellant's application to adduce further evidence in the form of an alcohol and drug report. The court granted the application, finding the report sufficiently fresh, credible and cogent. The appeal court then examined the starting point for the assault charges. The appellant's offending involved sustained violence over a 10-month period. It was serious family violence, including the use of weapons and attacks to the head. The appeal court considered that a starting point at the upper end of band two/the lower end of band three of Nuku, and of no less than three years, was appropriate for the charges of assault with a weapon. The Crown submitted that an uplift of at least 12 months would have been appropriate to account for the five convictions for assault on a person in a family relationship. The appeal court considered the global starting point of three years and six months taken by the Judge was well within the available range. The appeal court next considered the appellant's personal circumstances. Counsel submitted that a further discount of “eight to ten” months was warranted to account for his abusive background and its link to his present struggles with addiction. The appeal court noted that the Judge had recognised the impact of addiction contributing to the offending and the steps the appellant was taking to address it by attending rehabilitative programmes. The appeal court found that the Judge was required to make an evaluation based on a broad assessment of the seriousness of the harm, the culpability of the offender, the interests of the victim and the offender’s personal circumstances or background. The appeal court found the Judge did this and made no error. The end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The application to adduce further evidence is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders