Legal Research
Cases
Winiata v Police

Winiata v Police

Case [2023] NZHC 3363 24 November 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2023-454-024

[2023] NZHC 3363

BETWEEN
ROBERT WILLIAM WINIATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 November 2023

Appearances:

R M Gould for Appellant G M Stone for Respondent

Judgment:

24 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(sentence appeal)

A sentence appeal

[1] Robert Winiata appeals against a sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge L C Rowe on 1 September 2023.1 The sentence was imposed on charges of dangerous driving causing injury,2 driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury,3 failing to stop or ascertain injury after an accident,4 assaulting a police officer with intent to obstruct,5 and driving while disqualified on three occasions.6

1      New Zealand Police v Winiata [2023] NZDC 19186.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(b): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine of
$20,000 and a driving disqualification of at least one year.
3      Sections 61(1)(a) and 61(3A): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine of $20,000 and a driving disqualification of more than one year.
4      Section 36(1)(c): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine of $20,000 and a driving disqualification of at least one year.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 192(2): maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
6      Land Transport Act, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4): maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of $6,000 and a driving disqualification of at least one year.

WINIATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3363 [24 November 2023]

[2] The offending involved Mr Winiata, intoxicated on alcohol and methamphetamine, driving his car at high speed in a dangerous manner, clipping one car before crashing into a second car and causing injury to the driver, requiring hospital treatment. He ran from the scene, then when arrested, assaulted a female police officer by spitting at her and forcefully grabbing her. At the time, he was indefinitely disqualified and was subject to a zero-alcohol licence. He had five previous convictions for driving while disqualified. He was also on bail for two charges of driving while disqualified.

[3] Mr Winiata submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and should be reduced and substituted with a sentence of home detention. I conclude below that the sentence was stern but within the available range. I consider the Judge was entitled to take the view that the sentence should reflect the need for public protection given the seriousness of the offending, Mr Winiata’s history and his failure to take chances he had been given to rehabilitate.

What happened in more detail

[4] Mr Winiata was seen driving while disqualified at the Levin BP Service Station on 16 and 30 September 2022. He was granted bail and sentencing had been adjourned to give him a chance to have his indefinite disqualification removed after a finite period of disqualification ended on 10 May 2023.

[5] On 24 May 2023, Mr Winiata was driving at…

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 Winiata v Police

Details

AGLC: Winiata v Police [2023] NZHC 3363
Case: [2023] NZHC 3363
Decision Date: 24 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Winiata appeals against a two-year-two-month sentence imposed by Judge L C Rowe for dangerous driving causing injury, driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury, failing to stop or ascertain injury after an accident, assaulting a police officer with intent to obstruct, and driving while disqualified on three occasions. Winiata submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced and substituted with a sentence of home detention. The respondent submits the sentence was stern but within range and reflects the need for public protection given the seriousness of the offending, Winiata’s history, and his failure to take chances he had been given to rehabilitate.

The court considered the totality principle, noting that the uplifts applied for the less serious charges were not excessive due to a failure to apply the totality principle. The court also found that the four-month uplift for personal aggravating factors was within range. The court accepted the reduction for cultural factors was within the available range, but did not accept that the credit for remorse should have been greater due to the offer of restorative justice. The court found no calculation error in the guilty plea credit. The court modified the two-year finite disqualification to one year and one day, backdated to 24 May 2023. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The court found that the sentence was stern but within range, and that the Judge was entitled to take the view that the sentence should reflect the need to protect the public given the seriousness of the offending, Winiata’s history, and his failure to take the opportunities he had been given to rehabilitate. The issue of home detention did not therefore arise.

Orders