INIA v R [2023] NZHC 3333

INIA v R [2023] NZHC 3333 [22 November 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECRI-2023-419-000074[2023] NZHC 3333BETWEEN TOOTS TE POUNAMU INIAAppellantAND THE KINGRespondentHearing: 22 November 2023Counsel: A Bean for AppellantPK Noorland for RespondentJudgment: 22 November 2023ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS JSolicitors/Counsel:Crown Solicitor, Hamilton.A Bean, Hamilton.The appeal[1] Toots Inia appeals a sentence of 16 months and two weeks' imprisonment onoffences involving family violence. The sentence was made cumulative on a sentencefor unrelated firearms offending, so that the effective sentence is 26 months'imprisonment.1[2] The appeal must be allowed if the sentence is marred by error and a differentsentence should be imposed.2Background[3] Mr Inia and the victim were in a relationship for approximately one year.On 9 December 2021, Mr Inia and the victim had a disagreement. The victim left fora friend's address. Mr Inia went to that address. He approached the victim in a friendlymanner and placed his arm around her neck, in a gesture akin to hugging. Mr Iniathen punched the victim to the top of her nose. She suffered a laceration.[4] On 17 August 2022, the victim went to the Hamilton Police Station and madea statement to Police about Mr Inia. That statement included the assault just described.[5] On 18 August 2022, the victim was in a car at a park. Mr Inia approached,uninvited. Mr Inia opened the car door and punched the victim twice to the face, thenonce to the side of the head.[6] Mr Inia remonstrated with the victim that she had gone to Police and made astatement against him. He told her to move into the passenger seat. She refused.Mr Inia threw or pushed her into the passenger seat and got into the driver's seat. Hedrove away with the victim in the car. Mr Inia became anxious he was being trackedby virtue of the victim's phone. He removed it from the victim and destroyed it. Hethen threw the phone into a river.1 R v Inia [2023] NZDC 17920.2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.[7] On 6 December 2022, Police executed a warrant for Mr Inia's arrest. This ledthem to discover a loaded .410 calibre shotgun that had been cut down, so it was apistol. This is the firearms offence I mentioned earlier.[8] Mr Inia pleaded guilty to the charges. I say more about this shortly.[9] Judge Crayton adopted a starting point of 26 months' imprisonment in relationto the family violence offences: two offences of assault with intent to injure. TheJudge deducted 17.5 percent for Mr Inia's guilty pleas, which came on the first day oftrial. The Judge also deducted 15 percent in recognition of Mr Inia's upbringing andremorse. The Judge made the 16-month and two-week term cumulative on anine-month and two-week term for the firearms offence.3 As observed, this resultedin a sentence of 26 months' imprisonment.Argument and analysis[10] On behalf of Mr Inia, Mrs Bean contends the starting point for the familyviolence offences was too severe, inadequate discount was given for mitigatingfeatures, and the Judge failed to afford sufficient discount for totality. For reasons thatwill be explained, I am not persuaded any of these arguments is sustainable.More importantly, I am not persuaded the sentence is manifestly excessive.[11] First, the Judge did not uplift the starting point for Mr Inia's history of violence(he has three convictions for assault in 2018). Nor did the Judge uplift the startingpoint even though the August 2022 family violence offence was committed whileMr Inia was on bail for other charges of assault with intent to injure, threatening tokill, and assault with a weapon.[12] Second, the guilty plea discount was particularly generous. Mr Inia did notplead guilty until the first day of trial. While it is correct there had been discussionsbetween Mr Inia and the prosecution concerning the charges, the discussions wereonly that. Moreover, the proposed plea arrangement anticipated Mr Inia would alsoplead guilty to a kidnapping charge. He did not plead guilty to that charge and was3 Mr Inia had accepted a sentence indication from another Judge in relation to that offence.found not guilty of it at trial. So, Mr Inia received a substantial discount even thoughhe pleaded guilty late.[13] Third, the Judge did adjust for totality. He said:4However, there will be a totality adjustment. The totality adjustment will bethat the overall sentence will be brought back to 26 months or two years andtwo months. It will be adjusted in the following way. On the assault withintent to injure on the lead charge there will be a sentence of 16 months andtwo weeks. On the firearms offence there will be an overall sentence of ninemonths and two weeks. That will be cumulative.No error attaches to this assessment.[14] The sentence is not manifestly excessive. Mr Inia committed twopremeditated, separate assaults on his former partner. In each, he struck the head.Mr Inia also unlawfully possessed a loaded pistol. The seriousness of this combinationis self-evident. A sentence of two years and two months' imprisonment cannot beregarded as manifestly excessive.[15] I thank Mrs Bean for her helpful submissions.Result[16] The appeal is dismissed...Downs J4 R v Inia, above n 1, at [19].