Mauahara v Police [2018] NZHC 3004 (19 November 2018)

Last Updated: 6 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-000324 [2018] NZHC 3004

BETWEEN	BUCK GIVANNI MAUAHARA Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	19 November 2018
Counsel:	VD Heather for Appellant D Muratbegovic for Respondent
Judgment:	19 November 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

VD Heather, Auckland.

Crown Solicitor, Manukau.

MAUAHARA v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3004 [19 November 2018]

[1] Some cases are difficult. This one is not.

[2] Mr Buck Mauahara appeals a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment in relation to three charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury; three of driving while disqualified (being third or subsequent offences); and one of failing to answer bail.¹ Mr Mauahara contends the sentence is manifestly excessive.

[3] Mr Mauahara’s only complaint is Judge D J Harvey made no allowance for remorse. Mr Mauahara invites me to receive letters of apology to the victims and Court. These he composed recently. By recently, I mean the weekend just gone.

[4] As Mr Heather very responsibly acknowledges, there are difficulties with this approach. First, the letters do not constitute fresh evidence. Mr Mauahara was sentenced on 24 September 2018. He could have—but did not—adduce them then. Or, when pleading guilty, over a year ago. Second, the Supreme Court has held remorse must be the subject of robust assessment.² Mr Mauahara’s belated apology does little to demonstrate tangible remorse. Third, Mr Mauahara repeatedly failed to appear for sentencing. Hence the substantial delay (of more than a year) between his guilty pleas and sentencing. Fourth, Mr Mauahara committed offences on bail: he repeatedly drove while disqualified. Fifth, the pre-sentence report notes Mr Mauahara:

(a) Has a history of offending of this nature.

(b) Has been “non-compliant with both of his previous community-based sentences”.

(c) Has limited insight; fails to recognise the consequences of his actions; and is unmotivated to change.

[5] There is no contention the sentence was otherwise unavailable.

¹ Police v Mauahara [2018] NZDC 20268.

² Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

...................................

Downs J