Legal Research
Cases
R v Adlam-Kiro

R v Adlam-Kiro

Case [2020] NZHC 2679 13 October 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI 2020-027-000229

[2020] NZHC 2679

THE QUEEN

v

AIGE SHAKUR VALINTINE ADLAM-KIRO

Hearing: 13 October 2020

Appearances:

M Smith and S Patia for Crown C Cull for Defendant

Judgment:

13 October 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Catherine Cull, Barrister, Kaikohe

R v ADLAM-KIRO [2020] NZHC 2679 [13 October 2020]

[1] Aige Shakur Valintine Adlam-Kiro, you appear for sentence today for the manslaughter1 of Tawhirimatea Tahere on 24 February 2020 and the unlawful possession of a firearm.2 On 20 August 2020, you pleaded guilty to both charges. Brewer J entered your convictions and read a first strike warning3 because manslaughter is a qualifying offence under the ‘three strikes law’.4

[2] In setting down your sentencing, Brewer J agreed that you could remain remanded on bail to enable you to participate in a restorative justice process and stipulated that the pre-sentence report should contain a home detention appendix.

[3] I acknowledge the presence in court of Aroha Tahere, Mr Tahere’s mother, and other members of Mr Tahere’s family. I also acknowledge the presence of members of your family, Mr Adlam-Kiro, in particular your mother, grandmother and partner. It is difficult time for both families and I pay tribute to both families for the compassion, understanding, aroha and forgiveness that has been displayed.

[4] As we have heard from Aroha Tahere, we are here because of a tragedy caused by youthful recklessness. Tawhirimatea Tahere was your cousin and friend. You grew up together, even though you are a little older than Mr Tahere. You did things together. No doubt, he looked up to you, his older cousin. As he died, he forgave you for what had happened.

[5] Because sentencing is a public act, I must briefly explain the circumstances that give rise to the sentence I am about to impose. I regret the distress this may cause Mr Tahere’s family and, indeed you and your family, Mr Adlam-Kiro. This account is taken from the summary of facts which formed the basis of your guilty pleas.

[6] On 24 February 2020 at about 8:44 pm, you were sitting in the driver’s seat of your car at your cousin’s house in Kaikohe. Mr Tahere was sitting in the front passenger seat. You had placed the gun under the driver’s seat. You did not hold a firearms licence.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 171, 160(2)(a) and 177. Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or a fine of $5,000.
3      R v Adlam-Kiro HC Whangarei CRI-2020-027-229, 20 August 2020, call over minute of Brewer J.
4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86B.

[7] The gun was a modified, ‘sawn-off’ double-barrel shotgun. You and Mr Tahere were examining the weapon — twisting it around and looking at it together. At one point, when you were handling the shotgun, the barrel was pointed towards Mr Tahere. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Adlam-Kiro

Details

AGLC: R v Adlam-Kiro [2020] NZHC 2679
Case: [2020] NZHC 2679
Decision Date: 13 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adlam-Kiro, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved Aige Shakur Valintine Adlam-Kiro, who pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Tawhirimatea Tahere and the unlawful possession of a firearm. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature of the offence, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the wishes of the victim's family.

The key legal issues were the determination of the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating and aggravating personal factors of the offender. The court had to balance the need for deterrence, accountability, denunciation, and the rehabilitation of the offender against the personal circumstances of Adlam-Kiro and the impact of the offending on the victim's family.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the circumstances of the offence, comparing it with other cases of manslaughter involving firearms. The court found that while the offending was serious, it did not involve intentional harm or premeditation. The court accepted mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of prior convictions, genuine remorse, and participation in restorative justice. After applying the appropriate discounts, the court determined a final sentence of home detention for ten months on the manslaughter charge and five months on the Arms Act charge, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Aige Shakur Valintine Adlam-Kiro be sentenced to home detention for a period of ten months on the manslaughter charge and five months on the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, with both sentences to be served concurrently at the specified home detention address, under the standard and special conditions set out in the Sentencing Act.

Orders