Taurima v The King

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-441-025 [2024] NZHC 3281

BETWEEN
EDINA RANA TAURIMA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel:

E J Forster for Appellant

T A D Zohrab for Respondent

Judgment:

6 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against conviction where miscarriage from a mistake)

[1] This appeal deals with the correction of an error which led to Edina Taurima’s Criminal History record incorrectly indicating that she had been convicted of one charge of robbery.

[2] Ms Taurima was charged1 with robbery2 and with the alternative charges of assault with intent to injure3, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle4, and theft (where value of stolen property exceeds $1000)5, for offences on 3 September 2022.6 She was given a sentence indication on 8 December 2023.7 This was given based on Ms Taurima pleading guilty to alternative charges of assault with intent to injure,

1      Set out in the Crown Charge Notice dated 23 July 2023.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 234(1) and 234(2) — maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
3      Crimes Act, s 193 — maximum term of imprisonment of three years.
4      Crimes Act, s 226(2) — maximum term of imprisonment of two years.
5      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b) — maximum term of imprisonment of seven years.
6      The robbery charge was withdrawn.
7      R v Taurima DC Napier CRI-2022-020-002328, 8 December 2023.

TAURIMA v R [2024] NZHC 3281 [6 November 2024]

unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, and theft. The Crown sentencing indication submissions set this out, as did the defence sentencing indication submissions. The Judge also noted that position on the Court record on 2 November 2023. However, Mr Forster for the appellant submits that it appears that on the 8 or 13 December 2023 (the court record is difficult to read), when the appellant accepted the sentence indication, guilty pleas were entered by mistake for all four charges (including robbery). On 22 February 2024, Ms Taurima was sentenced on four charges relating to offences on 3 September 2022.8 The Judge incorrectly then referred to the robbery charge when she sentenced Ms Taurima saying [emphasis added]:9

Ms Taurima you are here for sentence today having accepted a sentence indication in relation to charges of robbery and other matters that relate to an incident now that occurred last year … .

[3] The conviction for the robbery charge was entered in the Criminal History record on 2 October 2024.10 The Crown accepts the entry is a mistake. It does not oppose the setting aside of the conviction.

[4] The mistake did not affect the sentence as the sentence indication was properly given and subsequently accepted, so no sentence appeal is pursued. Ms Taurima has, however, on the record been convicted twice for the same factual matter being offences on 3 September 2022.

[5] Sections s232(2)(c) and 232(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides for an appeal against conviction following a guilty plea where there has been a miscarriage of justice. Here there has been a miscarriage resulting from a mistake and to allow the record of conviction to stand without correction in a timely manner would be a miscarriage of justice.11

[6] Accordingly, the appeal against Ms Taurima’s conviction is allowed to the extent that one charge of robbery (under s 234 of the Crimes Act) entered on

8 R v Taurima [2024] NZDC 4057 [sentencing notes].
9 At [1].
10 Mr Forster explains Ms Taurima subsequently breached her home detention for the 3 September 2022 offending, and reoffended. This led to a re-sentence (on the 3 September 2022 offending) and fresh sentencing (on new matters) on 2 October 2024. The record was updated on 2 October 2024 and shows robbery included in the re-sentencing on 2 October 2024.
11 Huata v R [2024] NZCA 521 at [50].

2 October 2024 under CRN: 22020003976 (with an offence date of 3 September 2022) is set aside.12

Grice J

Solicitors:
Elvidge & Partners, Napier (Crown Solicitor’s Office) for Respondent

12 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 232(2)(c) and 233(2).

In the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, Edina Rana Taurima filed an appeal against her conviction where a miscarriage from a mistake had occurred, leading to an incorrect entry in her criminal history record. The appellant, Ms Taurima, was originally charged with robbery and other offences related to incidents on 3 September 2022. After entering guilty pleas to alternative charges, she was sentenced on 22 February 2024. However, an error occurred where the court record incorrectly indicated that she had been convicted of the robbery charge, despite it being withdrawn. This error led to an incorrect entry in her criminal history record, prompting the appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the error in the criminal history record constituted a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the erroneous conviction. The court had to determine if the mistake was significant enough to warrant an appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The appellant argued that the error led to an incorrect reflection of her criminal history, while the Crown conceded that the entry was indeed a mistake and did not oppose its removal.

The court found that the error in Ms Taurima's criminal history record was a clear mistake, which constituted a miscarriage of justice. It was held that allowing the record to stand without correction would be unjust. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the erroneous conviction for the charge of robbery. This decision rectified the mistake and ensured that Ms Taurima's criminal history accurately reflected her legal status.

The final order was that the conviction for the charge of robbery entered on 2 October 2024 under CRN: 22020003976, with an offence date of 3 September 2022, was set aside. This correction ensured that Ms Taurima's criminal history accurately reflected the true nature of her convictions and sentences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established