PIHEMA v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1650
Because the respondent accepted error and on assessment of submissions and time already served the appropriate final sentence was six months' imprisonment, the Court quashed the 10.5 month sentence and replaced it with six months' imprisonment with no release conditions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 1650
- Parties
- Appellant: Jamie William Pihema; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 July 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Sentencing Appeal (criminal) / High Court Decision on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; original sentence quashed and replaced
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Reduction, Error in Sentencing, Time Served
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jamie William Pihema
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Sentencing Appeal (criminal) / High Court Decision on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 10.5 months imposed on 27 April 2017 was erroneous
- 2 What final sentence is appropriate taking into account time in custody and submissions
- 3 Whether release conditions should be imposed
Ratio Decidendi
Because the respondent accepted error and on assessment of submissions and time already served the appropriate final sentence was six months' imprisonment, the Court quashed the 10.5 month sentence and replaced it with six months' imprisonment with no release conditions.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; original sentence quashed and replaced
Orders
- Sentence of 10.5 months' imprisonment imposed 27 April 2017 quashed
- Sentence replaced by six months' imprisonment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PIHEMA v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1650 [18 July 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRYCRI-2017-443-11[2017] NZHC 1650BETWEEN JAMIE WILLIAM PIHEMAAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 18 July 2017Counsel: J M Woodcock for AppellantG N Milne for RespondentJudgment: 18 July 2017RESULTS JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J[1] The appellant, Mr Pihema, has been in custody since 16 March 2017 effectively having served an eight month sentence of imprisonment. He appeals against a sentence of imprisonment imposed on 27 April 2017 for 10 and a half months'. The respondent accepts there was an error in the sentencing.Ms Milne submits a final sentence of eight months' imprisonment would have beenopen to the sentencing Judge. For the appellant, Ms Woodcock submits that a sentence between four to six months would be appropriate.[2] Written reasons will be provided but in my assessment a final sentence of six months' imprisonment is the correct one. For those reasons the appeal is allowed. The sentence of 10 and a half months' imprisonment is quashed. It isreplaced by a sentence of six months' imprisonment. No release conditions.Thomas JSolicitors:Crown Solicitors' Office, New Plymouth