Reihana v The Queen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2016-404-308 [2016] NZHC 2892

BETWEEN
HONE REIHANA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel:

M English for Appellant
H Clark for Respondent

Judgment:

2 December 2016

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 December 2016 at 2.00pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Auckland
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

REIHANA v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 2892 [2 December 2016]

against sentences imposed by the District Court at Waitakere. It was necessary to vary a number of sentences in order to reflect the effective term of one year and 10 months’ imprisonment that I substituted on appeal.

[2] One of the charges was described as criminal nuisance. I imposed a sentence of one year and two months’ imprisonment on that charge to run concurrently with the same sentence imposed on a charge of driving while disqualified on a third or subsequent occasion.

[3] After I delivered judgment, counsel drew to my attention the fact that an error had been made at some stage in the District Court records. The charge is recorded as being one of endangering transport. Counsel have proceeded on the basis that the endangering transport charge was amended to criminal nuisance on 27
July 2016, but the Permanent Court Record kept under s 184 of the Criminal

Procedure Act 2011 does not reflect that.

[4] Counsel are agreed that I should exercise my jurisdiction under r 7.1(7) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 to correct the entry in the Permanent Court Record. That involves both a change to the charge and an amendment of the sentence, as the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum available.

[5] I direct the Registrar to correct the entry in the Permanent Court Record by amending the charge of endangering transport to one of criminal nuisance. I set aside the sentence imposed in respect of that charge in my judgment of 27 October
2016, and substitute a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment. That term will run concurrently with the sentence of one year and two months’ imprisonment on the
driving while disqualified charge.2

1 Reihana v R [2016] NZHC 2557.
2 Ibid, at para [34](a).

P R Heath J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reihana v The Queen was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland. Hone Reihana, the appellant, appealed against sentences imposed by the District Court at Waitakere. The appeal was heard on the papers with M English representing the appellant and H Clark representing the respondent. Justice Heath delivered the judgment on 2 December 2016.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether there was an error in the District Court records that needed to be corrected and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court had to consider the nature of the error, the effect of the error on the sentence imposed, and the appropriate remedy under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.

The court found that there was an error in the District Court records which needed to be corrected. The charge of endangering transport was recorded instead of the correct charge of criminal nuisance. The court exercised its jurisdiction under r 7.1(7) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 to correct the entry in the Permanent Court Record. The court set aside the sentence imposed in respect of the endangering transport charge and substituted a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for the criminal nuisance charge. This sentence will run concurrently with the sentence of one year and two months' imprisonment on the driving while disqualified charge.

The court's reasoning was based on the need to ensure that the record of the court accurately reflected the charge and sentence imposed. The court found that the error had the effect of imposing a sentence that exceeded the maximum available for the criminal nuisance charge. Therefore, the court substituted a sentence that was within the maximum available for the charge. The court's outcome was to correct the error in the District Court records and impose an appropriate sentence for the criminal nuisance charge.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Counsel:	M English for Appellant H Clark for Respondent
Judgment:	2 December 2016