Potini v Police

[2015] NZHC 1517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2015-425-22 [2015] NZHC 1517

BETWEEN

JORDAN AHAB POTINI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	2 July 2015
Appearances:	S N Claver for the Appellant M McClenaghan for the Respondent
Judgment:	2 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1]      This appeal was called before me this morning.  Mr Claver had previously represented Mr Potini but informed me that Legal Aid have not granted legal aid for his appearance on an appeal.  He therefore had to seek leave to withdraw and I gave him leave to do so.

[2]      He did tell me that Mr Potini still wished to pursue the appeal but was not able to present any arguments in support of the appeal himself.

[3]      The Crown has filed detailed submissions in response to the appeal and I

have had the opportunity of considering those submissions.

[4]      The sentencing Judge noted that this burglary and the associated theft could not be considered as opportunistic or spontaneous in nature.  It was categorised, in my view, correctly as being of the nature of the burglary or theft made to order.  In

that sense it was more serious.

POTINI v POLICE [2015] NZHC 1517 [2 July 2015]

[5]      There are no tariffs for burglaries but the Court of Appeal in Arahanga and the Queen considered that dwelling house burglaries, at the relatively minor end of the scale, tended to attract a starting point of approximately 18 months to 2 years and

6 months’ imprisonment.1

[6]      In this instance, Mr Potini has forced entry into a victim’s van and taken a

valuable bike.   The burglary has also involved the taking of firearms valued at

$6,000.   When the Police searched Mr Potini’s property, they found the shotgun

which had been sawn down and the serial numbers damaged.

[7]      I agree with the Crown that the offending is serious because of the high value of the items that were targeted, the fact that firearms were specifically targeted and that those firearms have been illegally modified.   The burglary was a day time burglary of a residential property.

[8]      Mr Potini also had a relevant history involving taking of motor vehicles, in

March 2012 conviction of burglary and receiving in 2012.

[9]      The starting point of 27 months adopted in the District Court was, in my view, well within range and, in fact, could have been a little higher.  I agree that the three month uplift for prior convictions was appropriate.   Appropriate credit was given for certain mitigating factors and a full 25 percent discount for a guilty plea.

[10]     This Court cannot allow an appeal against sentence unless it is satisfied that the end sentence was clearly wrong and manifestly excessive.   In my view, the sentence imposed was well within the acceptable range.  For that reason the appeal must be dismissed.

Solicitors:

S N Claver, Barrister, Dunedin North. Crown Solicitor, Invercargill

1      Arahanga v R [2012] NZCA 480, [2013] 1 NZLR 189 at [78].