Legal Research
Cases
Wiringi v Police

Wiringi v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 322 27 February 2024

Dishonest Use of a Vehicle

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-235

[2024] NZHC 322

BETWEEN
NIKORA TAMATI WIRINGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 February 2024

Appearances:

G E R Alloway for Appellant

W J S Mohammed for Respondent

Judgment:

27 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 February 2024 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

WIRINGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 322 [27 February 2024]

Introduction

[1] Nikora Wiringi was sentenced to two years three months’ imprisonment by Judge Couch on 8 November 2023 for charges of:1

(a)possession of a knife;2

(b)burglary;3

(c)threatening behaviour;4

(d)breach of protection order;5

(e)speaking threateningly;6

(f)wilful damage;7

(g)interfering with motor vehicles (representative);8 and

(h)dishonest use of a vehicle.9

[2]Mr Wiringi appeals that sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive.

Factual background

Possession of a knife

[3] On 23 February 2023, police stopped Mr Wiringi after he was observed driving a car erratically in Nelson and found a knife in the car.

1      Police v Wiringi [2023] NZDC 24808.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine of
$2,000.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act, s 21(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
5      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(a), 9 and 112(1)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
6      Summary Offences Act, s 21(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
7      Section 11(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
8      Crimes Act, s 226(2); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
9      Section 226(1); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

Threatening behaviour

[4] On 17 April 2023, Mr Wiringi was at the Nelson District Court. He threatened a security guard by saying, “I’m going to come back and get you” and racially abused him.

Breach of protection order, speaking threateningly, and wilful damage

[5] In January 2022, a protection order was made final against Mr Wiringi in favour of his ex-partner.

[6] At approximately 8.40 am on 1 May 2023, Mr Wiringi went to his ex-partner’s unit and banged on the door. His ex-partner did not answer but went onto the balcony of the unit to see what Mr Wiringi wanted. The two got into an argument and, in the course of that argument, Mr Wiringi threw a rock at her vehicle, shattering the windshield.

[7] Before the incident, Mr Wiringi sent several text messages to his ex-partner threatening to assault her. One text stated, “Next time ima punch your nose in”.

Burglary, interfering with motor vehicles, and dishonest use of a vehicle

[8] Between 7 pm on 5 July and 9.30 am on 6 July 2023, a Nissan vehicle was stolen from the owner’s secured residential garage in Christchurch.

[9] Between 17 and 18 July 2023, Mr Wiringi and his co-offender, Mr Swete, were 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 Wiringi v Police

Details

AGLC: Wiringi v Police [2024] NZHC 322
Case: [2024] NZHC 322
Decision Date: 27 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nikora Tamati Wiringi appeals the two years three months’ imprisonment sentence imposed on him by Judge Couch for several charges, arguing it is manifestly excessive. The High Court found the sentence was within the available range and dismissed the appeal. The appellant was found guilty of possession of a knife, burglary, threatening behaviour, breach of a protection order, speaking threateningly, wilful damage, interfering with motor vehicles, and dishonest use of a vehicle. The Crown submitted the sentence was within range and appropriately reflected the appellant's criminal history and culpability. The appellant submitted the starting points for the lead offences were too high, the uplift for previous convictions was excessive, and the credit for his s 27 report was insufficient. The High Court considered the starting points for the burglary and interfering with a motor vehicle charges were within the available range, the 10 per cent uplift for previous convictions was appropriate, and the 10 per cent credit for background factors was within range. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders