R v Pomana  NZDC 12631
Published 02 December 2019
Sentencing — burglary — dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage — assaulting a police employee — receiving stolen property — minimum non-parole period — Arahanga v R  NZCA 480,  1 NZLR 189 — R v Nguyen CA110/01, 2 July 2001 — Lee v Police  NZHC 1172 — Sentencing Act 2002, s 85.
The defendant appeared for sentence on four charges of burglary, 16 of dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage, one of receiving stolen property and one of assaulting a police employee. He had committed the burglaries to obtain cash, credit cards and other items, and had then used the stolen credit cards to purchase items worth about $1815. He had then spat in the eyes and mouth of a police employee while he was in the cells at the police station.
The Court set a start point of three years' imprisonment for the burglaries, and uplifted this by seven months for the rest of the offending. The Court added a further nine-month uplift for previous convictions (58 of burglary alone). With a discount for guilty plea, the final sentence was three years three months' imprisonment. Given the defendant's family circumstances and prospects for rehabilitation, the Court declined to set a minimum non-parole period.
Judgment Date: 28 June 2019.