Pihema v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-443-11 [2017] NZHC 1650

BETWEEN
JAMIE WILLIAM PIHEMA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 July 2017

Counsel:

J M Woodcock for Appellant
G N Milne for Respondent

Judgment:

18 July 2017

RESULTS 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 been open 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 is replaced by a sentence of six months’ imprisonment. No release conditions.

Thomas J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors’ Office, New Plymouth

PIHEMA v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1650 [18 July 2017]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pihema v Police involves Jamie William Pihema, who was serving a sentence of imprisonment, and the New Zealand Police. Mr. Pihema appealed against a sentence of imprisonment that was imposed on 27 April 2017, for a duration of 10 and a half months. He had been in custody since 16 March 2017, effectively having served eight months of his sentence. The respondent, the New Zealand Police, accepted that there was an error in the sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr. Pihema. The court was required to consider whether the initial sentence was appropriate and if not, to determine a more suitable sentence. Ms. Woodcock, counsel for the appellant, argued that a sentence between four to six months would be appropriate. Conversely, Ms. Milne, counsel for the respondent, submitted that a final sentence of eight months’ imprisonment would have been open to the sentencing judge. The court had to weigh these submissions and decide on a suitable sentence.

The court, Thomas J, assessed the submissions and determined that a final sentence of six months’ imprisonment was the correct one. The court quashed the initial sentence of 10 and a half months’ imprisonment and replaced it with a sentence of six months’ imprisonment. The court provided reasons for its decision and noted that written reasons would be provided. The appeal was allowed, and the new sentence was to be served without any release conditions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	18 July 2017
Counsel:	J M Woodcock for Appellant G N Milne for Respondent
Judgment:	18 July 2017