R v Pukepuke

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2021-070-1899

[2023] NZHC 2347

THE KING

v

DANE MARK PUKEPUKE

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

28 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[second application to vacate guilty plea]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 28 August 2023 at 10.00 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
D L Bates, Tauranga

R v PUKEPUKE [2023] NZHC 2347 [28 August 2023]

[1] I have now received the second application by Mr Pukepuke seeking leave to withdraw his guilty plea. I have also received the memorandum filed by Mr Bates in support of the application.

[2] Mr Bates has indicated in his memorandum that Mr Pukepuke relies on the submissions already filed in support of the first application to vacate his guilty plea. I have received the Crown’s submissions in relation to that application and assume it relies on those as well. There is therefore no need to conduct an oral hearing. I propose to determine the application on the basis of the submissions filed by both parties.

[3] Mr Pukepuke received competent legal advice from Mr Hine before he entered his plea. This was to the effect that he should not plead guilty to the charge at such an early stage. Mr Hine has acted for Mr Pukepuke previously. He has confirmed in his affidavit that nothing in his dealings with Mr Pukepuke in relation to the present charge led him to suspect that Mr Pukepuke was not capable of making a rational decision at the time he entered his plea.

[4] Mr Pukepuke has not filed an affidavit in support of his application. However, he told the writers of both the pre-sentence report and the cultural report prepared for sentencing that he was present when Mr Kuka died. He has also made comments that indicate he was involved in the events that led to Mr Kuka’s death. There is nothing in that material to suggest there may be a credible defence to the charge based on accident, self defence or lack of intent. It follows that on the information currently available the application cannot succeed.

[5] The second application for leave to withdraw the guilty plea is accordingly dismissed.

Lang J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand at Tauranga, the case of The King versus Dane Mark Pukepuke was heard on the papers and judgment was delivered by Justice Lang on 28 August 2023. This case involved Pukepuke's second application to vacate his guilty plea. The Crown had previously charged Pukepuke with a criminal offence, to which he had entered a guilty plea. However, Pukepuke subsequently sought to withdraw this plea.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Pukepuke's second application to withdraw his guilty plea should be granted. This involved considering whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted allowing Pukepuke to withdraw his plea, despite having previously received competent legal advice against doing so. The court also had to assess whether there was any credible defence available to Pukepuke that could be raised if his plea were to be vacated.

Justice Lang determined that Pukepuke had received competent legal advice from his lawyer, Mr Hine, who had advised against pleading guilty at an early stage. Despite this, Pukepuke still sought to withdraw his plea. The court noted that there was no indication that Pukepuke was not capable of making a rational decision when he entered his plea. Furthermore, the information available did not suggest the existence of a credible defence, such as accident, self-defence, or lack of intent. Given these factors, the court dismissed the application, finding that there were no exceptional circumstances to allow Pukepuke to withdraw his plea.

As a result of this decision, Pukepuke's second application to vacate his guilty plea was dismissed. The court confirmed that the guilty plea would stand, and the case would proceed based on the plea that had already been entered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established