R v Baker - [2024] NZHC 1427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-090-001966

[2024] NZHC 1427

THE KING

v

TAMIRAH BAKER

Hearing: 31 May 2024

Appearances:

B D Tantrum and C Purdon for Crown J Schlebusch for Defendant

Sentence:

31 May 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland J Schlebusch/P Syddall, Auckland

R v BAKER [2024] NZHC 1427 [31 May 2024]

[1] Ms Baker, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury on charges of being an accessory after the fact to murder1 and being in unlawful possession of a firearm.2 At the commencement of your trial you pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving and failing to stop.3

Factual background

[2] I propose to sentence you on the basis of the facts as I find them to be, having been the Judge who presided over your trial.

[3] The charges were laid as a result of your involvement in events that occurred after the shooting of Mr Benjamin McIntosh on the morning of 3 June 2022. You had been in a relationship with Mr McIntosh for some time before this. The evidence at trial was that the relationship was not without its difficulties.

[4] During the preceding evening, you had been in the company of Mr Ethan Dodds and Mr Julius Te Hivaka, the two persons who have been found guilty of Mr McIntosh’s murder. The evidence at trial satisfies me that during the evening you became aware that Mr McIntosh had won a large sum of money on a gaming machine in a bar. I am satisfied that you passed this information on to Mr Dodds and possibly Mr Te Hivaka.

[5] At some time before 7 am on the morning of 3 June 2022, Mr Te Hivaka made arrangements to meet Mr McIntosh in the parking area of a park in West Auckland for the purpose of purchasing methamphetamine from him. Mr Dodds accompanied Mr Te Hivaka to the park and took with him a loaded firearm. When Mr McIntosh arrived, Mr Te Hivaka and Mr Dodds got into his vehicle. Mr Dodds then produced the loaded firearm with the intention of using it to scare Mr McIntosh into parting with any drugs and cash in his possession. A few moments later, Mr Dodds discharged the firearm in the direction of Mr McIntosh. The bullet entered his shoulder before exiting his torso and lodging in his brain. Mr McIntosh died approximately 48 hours later from this injury.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 176.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1).
3      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A and 114(2) (dangerous driving); s 35(1)(b) (failing to stop).

[6] Mr Te Hivaka and Mr Dodds then immediately left the park. Mr Te Hivaka dropped Mr Dodds off at his mother’s address in Hillsborough and she then immediately drove him out of Auckland. They did not return until late in the evening on 3…

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 Baker

Details

AGLC: R v Baker [2024] NZHC 1427
Case: [2024] NZHC 1427
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baker, heard in the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Tamirah Baker, who was found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder and being in unlawful possession of a firearm. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, assessing any aggravating or mitigating factors, and deciding whether the sentence should be imprisonment or home detention. The court held that a starting point of 18 months imprisonment was appropriate for the charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder, with an additional uplift of six months for the possession of the firearm and the dangerous evasion of police. The court considered various factors, including Baker's prior criminal history, her time on bail, and her compliance with electronic monitoring conditions, ultimately deciding on a discount of six months for the time spent on restrictive bail conditions. Given the sentence was less than two years, the court concluded that home detention was the least restrictive and most rehabilitative option. The court sentenced Baker to six months home detention on each charge, to be served concurrently, along with a disqualification from driving for a period of one year.

Orders