Legal Research
Cases
Wharewaka v The King

Wharewaka v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2962 8 October 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-359

[2025] NZHC 2962

BETWEEN
WIREMU PEREPETI WHAREWAKA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 September 2025

Appearances:

A O Graham for Appellant

V V Sudhakar for Respondent

Judgment:

8 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 October 2025 at 1 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
M E Goodwin, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

WHAREWAKA v R [2025] NZHC 2962 [8 October 2025]

[1] Mr Wharewaka appeals the decision of Judge E P Paul on 12 June 2025 sentencing him to two years and six months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea1 in respect of 11 charges — two burglaries,2 six receiving charges,3 unlawful possession of ammunition,4 unlawfully using a motor vehicle,5 and driving while prohibited.6

[2]Mr Wharewaka appeals his sentence on four grounds:

(a)the starting point adopted by Judge Paul for the burglary charges;

(b)the totality reduction was insufficient and the uplift for the receiving charges was manifestly excessive;

(c)the guilty plea reduction was inadequate; and

(d)insufficient weight was given to his personal mitigating circumstances.

[3] In support of his appeal, the appellant seeks to admit new evidence in the form of a comprehensive Alcohol and Other Drug report (AOD report). If the appeal is allowed and the end sentence is below two years’ imprisonment, the appellant seeks home detention.

[4] The Crown opposes the appeal on all four grounds. While the approach taken by the sentencing Judge could be described as stern, it was within the range available and is not manifestly excessive.

Legal principles

[5] The Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.7 Generally, the sentence must be shown to be manifestly excessive or wrong

1      R v Wharewaka [2025] NZDC 15111.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 246(1) and 247(a). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Arms Act 1983, s 22B. Maximum penalty: $10,000 fine.
5      Crimes Act, s 226(1). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
6      Land Transport Act 1998, s 52(1)(c). Maximum penalty: $10,000 fine.
7      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

in principle.8 The focus is on the end sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it is reached.9

[6] The claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive (or inadequate) is inevitably premised on the contention of prior error, which may include questions of whether the starting point was too high given the facts, or of incorrect allowances.10

[7] Appellate courts do not indulge in mere tinkering with a sentence.11 The Court generally will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles.

Facts of offending

[8]The two burglary offences were conducted as follows:

(a)At about 4.40…

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 Wharewaka v The King

Details

AGLC: Wharewaka v The King [2025] NZHC 2962
Case: [2025] NZHC 2962
Decision Date: 8 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wiremu Perepeti Wharewaka appeals the sentence imposed by Judge E P Paul on 12 June 2025, following a guilty plea to 11 charges, including two burglaries, six receiving charges, unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawfully using a motor vehicle, and driving while prohibited. The appellant's grounds of appeal are: the starting point for the burglary charges was too high; the uplift for the receiving charges was excessive and the totality reduction was insufficient; the guilty plea reduction was inadequate; and insufficient weight was given to personal mitigating circumstances. The appellant seeks to admit a new Alcohol and Other Drug report (AOD report) in support of his appeal and, if successful, seeks home detention. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the sentence was within the available range and not manifestly excessive. The High Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed. The focus is on the end sentence imposed, rather than the process by which it is reached. The Court generally will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The Court found no error in the starting point for the burglary charges, which reflected the sophisticated and premeditated nature of the offending, the risk of confrontation, and the high value of stolen property. The uplift for the receiving charges and the guilty plea reduction were also found to be within range. While the personal circumstances and background of the appellant may be considered under s 27 of the Sentencing Act, the offending was commercially motivated and planned, and there was no basis to conclude that the appellant was exploited, manipulated or coerced into the offending. The Court found no error in the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge. Considerations of home detention therefore do not arise. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders