M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Media

FROM: Justice Woolford

DATE: 5 December 2014

SUBJECT: Media Summary –

New Zealand Police v Paki [2014] NZHC 3112

_____________

The High Court in Auckland has partially allowed the Crown’s appeal against a District Court decision to discharge without conviction the son of the Māori King, the respondent Korotangi Te Hokinga Mai Douglas Paki, on one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol in October 2013, and two charges of burglary and one of theft in March 2014.

The High Court held that the respondent is to be convicted and discharged for the drink drinking offence. The order disqualifying him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for eight months was confirmed. He was, however, discharged without conviction on the two charges of burglary and one of theft.

The Crown had argued that convictions should be entered against the respondent’s name, but sought no further penalty or sentence.

Because the respondent’s lawyer, Mr Paul Wicks QC, conceded that the District Court Judge had made the errors alleged by the Crown, the High Court was required to determine whether the consequences of conviction to the respondent would be disproportionate to the gravity of his offending. In doing so this Court had to determine whether there would be a real and appreciable risk that a conviction or convictions would affect the respondent’s chances of becoming the next Māori King. This was the key issue in the case.

The Court concluded that, while the offending in its totality was moderately serious, its gravity was low to moderate due to a number of mitigating factors (as listed at [28] to [30]). However, because the respondent had admitted the charges and his name had been published in connection to them, it was highly unlikely that he would be nominated to be the next Māori King. Therefore the consequence of a conviction in further decreasing the respondent’s chance to be the next Māori King was considered to be small.

Weighing the gravity of the offending against the consequences of conviction, the Court found that it would be out of all proportion to enter convictions for the burglary and theft convictions. It considered that multiple dishonesty convictions at a young age would be a disproportionate stain on the respondent’s character when compared to the low to moderate

gravity of the offence. The principle that co-offenders who commit similar offences should receive similar sentences also applied.

But the same did not apply for the drink driving offence. While a drink driving conviction would be a black mark, it was not an irredeemable one. The marginal decrease in the respondent’s chance of becoming the next Māori King, that could be considered a consequence of the drink driving conviction, was not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. Accordingly there was no jurisdiction under the Sentencing Act 2002 to discharge Mr Paki for the drink driving charge.

Note: this summary is intended for the assistance of the media and does not substitute for the decision of the Court.

Judgment: NewZealandPolicevPaki_1.pdf

© Scoop Media