Legal Research
Cases
Wiringi v Police

Wiringi v Police

Case [2017] NZHC 1461 28 June 2017

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-409-56 [2017] NZHC 1461

BETWEEN
FAIRMONT JOSEPH WIRINGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondents

Hearing: 28 June 2017

Appearances:

M Starling for Appellant
S J Mallett and S Dayal for Respondents

Judgment:

28 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

(ON APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - REASONS TO FOLLOW)

[1] This appeal was heard on Wednesday 28 June 2017.

[2] The appeal is dismissed and Reasons for Judgment will follow.

……………………………………………….

Nicholas Davidson J

Solicitors:
Michael Starling, Barrister, Christchurch
Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch

WIRINGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 1461 [28 June 2017]

Details

AGLC: Wiringi v Police [2017] NZHC 1461
Case: [2017] NZHC 1461
Decision Date: 28 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Fairmont Joseph Wiringi appealed against his sentence. The appeal was heard on June 28, 2017, with M Starling appearing for the appellant and S J Mallett and S Dayal for the respondents. The appeal was dismissed, and reasons for judgment were given on the same day.

The appeal was based on the appellant's conviction for multiple charges, including assault and kidnapping. The primary legal issues for the court were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the sentencing principles and if the sentence was excessive. The court also considered whether the appellant's offending history and circumstances warranted a specific sentence.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to the charges and noted the appellant's extensive criminal history. The court concluded that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant factors and applied the sentencing principles correctly. The court found that the sentence imposed was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the offending. The court further found that the trial judge had adequately considered the appellant's circumstances and background in determining the appropriate sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court confirmed that the trial judge's decision was sound and that the sentence was justified under the circumstances.

Orders