MAUAHARA v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3004
The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err: the 27 month sentence was available and not manifestly excessive given aggravating factors (repeated offending, offending on bail, failure to appear, history of non-compliance and limited insight) and the appellant's belated letters of apology did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 3004
- Parties
- Appellant: Buck Givanni Mauahara; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 November 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Against Sentence / High Court Oral Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Driving With Excess Blood Alcohol, Driving While Disqualified, Failing to Answer Bail, Remorse Assessment, Delay Between Plea and Sentencing
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Buck Givanni Mauahara
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / High Court Oral Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 27 months' imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive
- 2 Whether the appellant's belated letters of apology amount to remorse warranting sentence reduction or constitute fresh evidence
- 3 Whether the appellant's offending on bail, failure to appear, prior non-compliance and lack of insight justify the sentence imposed
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err: the 27 month sentence was available and not manifestly excessive given aggravating factors (repeated offending, offending on bail, failure to appear, history of non-compliance and limited insight) and the appellant's belated letters of apology did not constitute fresh evidence nor demonstrate genuine remorse that would justify a reduction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentence of 27 months' imprisonment upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MAUAHARA v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3004 [19 November 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI-2018-404-000324[2018] NZHC 3004BETWEEN BUCK GIVANNI MAUAHARAAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 19 November 2018Counsel: VD Heather for AppellantD Muratbegovic for RespondentJudgment: 19 November 2018ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS JSolicitors/Counsel:VD Heather, Auckland.Crown Solicitor, Manukau.[1] Some cases are difficult. This one is not.[2] Mr Buck Mauahara appeals a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment in relationto three charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury; three of drivingwhile disqualified (being third or subsequent offences); and one of failing to answerbail.1 Mr Mauahara contends the sentence is manifestly excessive.[3] Mr Mauahara's only complaint is Judge D J Harvey made no allowance forremorse. Mr Mauahara invites me to receive letters of apology to the victims andCourt. These he composed recently. By recently, I mean the weekend just gone.[4] As Mr Heather very responsibly acknowledges, there are difficulties with thisapproach. First, the letters do not constitute fresh evidence. Mr Mauahara wassentenced on 24 September 2018. He could have—but did not—adduce them then.Or, when pleading guilty, over a year ago. Second, the Supreme Court has heldremorse must be the subject of robust assessment.2 Mr Mauahara's belated apologydoes little to demonstrate tangible remorse. Third, Mr Mauahara repeatedly failed toappear for sentencing. Hence the substantial delay (of more than a year) between hisguilty pleas and sentencing. Fourth, Mr Mauahara committed offences on bail: herepeatedly drove while disqualified. Fifth, the pre-sentence report notesMr Mauahara:(a) Has a history of offending of this nature.(b) Has been "non-compliant with both of his previous community-basedsentences".(c) Has limited insight; fails to recognise the consequences of his actions;and is unmotivated to change.[5] There is no contention the sentence was otherwise unavailable.1 Police v Mauahara [2018] NZDC 20268.2 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.[6] The appeal is dismissed...Downs J