R v Bennett
[2022] NZHC 1124
•10 May 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2020-063-2105
[2022] NZHC 1124
THE QUEEN v
KORINA BENNETT
Hearing: 20 May 2022 Appearances:
L Evans for Crown
K Burroughs for Defendant
Judgment:
10 May 2022
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
R v BENNETT [2022] NZHC 1124 [10 May 2022]
[1] Ms Bennett, at 49 years of age you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping,1 participating in an organised criminal group2 and being a party to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.3 The kidnapping and wounding charges carry maximum sentences of 14 years imprisonment whilst the charge of participating in an organised criminal group carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
[2] You entered your guilty pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 3 March 2022.4 This will be annexed to, and will form part, of these remarks.
The facts
[3] Your offending occurred because of your longstanding association with Ms Daisy Raiwhara, also known as Daisy Rifle. Ms Rifle is now deceased. You viewed Ms Rifle as a mother figure, and she was one of the few persons from whom you would take advice and accept instructions. In October 2020 Ms Rifle was living at a motel in Rotorua. She was terminally ill by this stage and you had come to Rotorua to care for her.
[4] Ms Rifle was the leader of a group known as the Black Power Sisters. As its name suggests, the members of this group were females who aligned themselves with the Black Power gang, which only permits males to be members. You were a longstanding member of this group. Another member of the group was a person by the name of Rickylee Dixon. In October 2020 Ms Dixon came to believe that the female victim had stolen methamphetamine from her. She therefore set about to recover the value of the methamphetamine. Ms Dixon decided she would organise a group to kidnap the victim and extort sums of money from her father in order to procure her release. The victim was then kidnapped and severely beaten on two separate occasions.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 209.
2 Section 98A(1).
3 Section 188(1).
4 R v Bennett [2022] NZHC 352.
[5] The Crown accepts you had no involvement in the first of these incidents. You became involved in the second incident, which occurred in another unit at Ms Rifle’s motel, on the morning of 22 October 2020. During this incident several persons, including Ms Rickylee Dixon and her daughter Daisy, bound and gagged the victim and then struck her on numerous occasions to the head and body using a variety of instruments. These included a baseball bat, gardening shears and a tomahawk. At one stage one of the persons in the unit bent the victim’s arms back to the point where her elbow snapped. The beating occurred both in the lounge area of the unit and in a bedroom.
[6] You were not physically involved in these assaults. Your culpability lies in the fact that you stood guard outside the doorway of the motel unit to ensure no one entered and the victim did not escape. When the violence came to an end you helped conceal the fact that the victim was being placed on the rear tray of a utility vehicle that had been brought to the unit by one of the persons in the group. You did this by shaking rugs in the vicinity to conceal what was happening from others in and around the motel complex. You then remained behind to clean up the unit after the victim had been taken from it.
[7] Your culpability in this incident led me to select a starting point of four years imprisonment.
Aggravating factors
[8] You have numerous previous convictions, but the Crown acknowledges these are not relevant to the present offending. I did not apply an uplift to reflect this factor.
Mitigating factors
[9] The only mitigating factor for which I was prepared to provide a discount in the sentence indication was that for guilty pleas. I indicated that I was prepared to apply a discount of ten months, or 20 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas. It now remains for me to determine whether further discounts should be applied to reflect other mitigating factors identified in the pre-sentence report and in a report tendered by your counsel under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
[10]The summary provided at the beginning of the s 27 report reads as follows:
2This report provides broader context of the numerous factors causative of Ms Bennett’s offending. Central to the nexus of her offending is her long-standing membership of the Black Power Sisters.
3.Unpacking Ms Bennett’s narrative revealed more about her trajectory to the gang world. Her life story is full of multiple incidents of grief and loss, all of which altered her life path to the underworld.
4The Black Power Movement is where she found a substitute whanau and sense of belonging after being abandoned by her mother as a young child and subsequently her father; the premature passing of her grandmother; the accidental workplace death of her husband; and losing the day to day care of their five children to her deceased husband’s older sisters.
5Severe family dysfunction typical of the intergenerational impact of colonisation that has resulted in cultural, social and economic deprivation for Maori is the starting point of Ms Bennett’s narrative. She was born into disadvantage and marginalisation.
6Violence was another layer of the dysfunction at home. This in turn brought about the breakdown of their family unit, with her mother fleeing to Australia, taking only Ms Bennett’s younger brother and leaving Ms Bennett outside Social Welfare with a suitcase and an envelope.
7She ended up with her maternal grandparents where she was molested by her grandfather. Her grandmother passed away prematurely and Ms Bennett returned to her father’s care. He eventually moved to Australia as well. Ms Bennett remained in New Zealand. She became a runaway child and ended up in foster fare and girl’s homes, where she was again abused. She learnt very quickly from a young age to fend for herself.
8At 15 y old she had her first child. She went on to have four more children and married the father of her children. He was tragically killed in a workplace accident and she was widowed. This was a pivotal event in her life that once again disrupted any chance she had of stability and consistency of care. Substance abuse issues came to the fore and within a year of her husband’s passing, she was serving her first term of imprisonment for methamphetamine and cannabis.
9Having suffered grief and loss trauma multiple times, Ms Bennett continued to seek out a mother figure, family and place to belong. She found that in the Black Power Movement. Her longstanding membership in the gang is how she became involved in her current offending. Ms Bennett was in Rotorua the time of the offending, taking care of their President, Daisy Raiwhara, who was terminally ill and staying in a motel room where the offending took place.
10Ms Bennett is deeply remorseful for the offending. She feels much empathy for the victim, the victim’s child, and the victim’s family. She wishes she had done more to prevent the offending.
11Having reflected on her life story, Ms Bennett can see how significant life events have shaped her pathway to her current predicament. She still carries a lot of mamae [pain and suffering] for things that happened to her during her childhood. Some of these things she remains reluctant to address for fear of being retraumatised.
12To her credit, however, she has started a process of healing that has commenced with reconnecting with her children and starting to heal the rift with her mother. She has a supportive partner and her eldest daughter is also a pillar of strength for her.
13Ms Bennett accepts responsibility for her offending and is hopeful of a community based sentence.
[11] The report then goes on to amplify each of the topics contained in the above summary. These reveal that your childhood was marred with violence perpetrated by your father. The unhealthy relationship between your parents resulted in your mother fleeing to Australia for her own safety taking with her only her youngest child. She abandoned you and this led to you being cared for by other family members when you were five years of age. During this period you were sexually abused by one of your caregivers. You were then placed in State care and this resulted in you sustaining further abuse. The report confirms that the trauma of these experiences has had long- term impacts on your physical, mental and emotional wellbeing.
[12] Your educational achievements are extremely limited. You cannot read and have a limited ability to write. You had no interest in education and were the subject of disciplinary issues throughout your school years. You received no secondary education. By 15 years of age you were having your first child. You went on to have nine more children who are now between the ages of 10 and 33 years.
[13] In common with many others who appear before the courts you have been involved in the abuse of substances since an early age. You have also had an affiliation of more than 30 years duration with offshoots of the Black Power organisation. This led directly to the present offending.
[14] Having read the report it is no surprise that you became involved in the incident that led to these charges. I am satisfied you did so out of a misguided loyalty to a
person whom you regarded as someone you could look up to. Your loyalty to that person arose out of your attachment to her and others in the organisation produced by substitution of that group for the family you have never had. I propose to apply a further discount of seven months, or 15 per cent, to reflect your appalling background and the link that this has with the present offending.
[15] The s 27 report also makes it clear that you are deeply remorseful for your involvement in this offending, and you have written letters to the Court and the victim of your offending to apologise and express your deep remorse. In addition, you have remained out of trouble since your arrest in October 2020. You have also abided by the terms of your bail during that lengthy period. Your daughter notes that you are now more settled in your ways and that you are happier and more content than you have been for a long time. You have also reconnected with your children which in my view is a major achievement. Taking into account your remorse and rehabilitative efforts, I propose to apply a further discount of seven months.
[16] This reduces the sentence to one of two years imprisonment, thereby creating the possibility of a sentence of home detention rather than imprisonment.
Home detention
[17] The pre-sentence report recommends a sentence of home detention. In deciding whether that sentence is appropriate I consider two factors to be important. The first is that you were not directly involved in the events that occurred inside the motel unit. The fact that you remained outside the unit meant that you did not have any idea of the nature and scale of what was happening inside. Had you been one of the persons who inflicted physical violence on the victim a sentence of imprisonment would have been the only appropriate sentencing option. Secondly, I consider the remorse you have shown and the rehabilitative efforts you have made over the last two years would effectively be undone if you were now required to spend 12 months in prison.
[18]These factors persuade me that a sentence of home detention is appropriate.
Sentence
[19] On each of the charges to which you have entered guilty pleas, you are sentenced to twelve months home detention to be served at the address specified, and on the conditions set out in the pre-sentence report dated 11 May 2022. You are to travel directly from Court to that address and you are to await the arrival of the monitoring authorities who will install the monitoring equipment. Thereafter, you will abide by a 24 hour curfew at that address and you will only leave for absences approved by the EM bail assessment team. In addition, I impose the first three post- detention conditions specified in that report.
Lang J
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2020-063-2105
[2022] NZHC 352
THE QUEEN v
KORINA BENNET
Hearing: 3 March 2022 Appearances:
A McConachey for Crown K Burroughs for Defendant
Judgment:
3 March 2022
SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
[1] Ms Bennet faces a variety of charges arising out of incidents that occurred on 21 and 22 October 2020. Her trial is due to commence on 1 August 2022. The Crown has indicated it would be prepared to resolve the charges by condensing them into charges of kidnapping, participating in an organised criminal group and being a party to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
[2] On that basis Ms Bennett now seeks a sentence indication. This is an indication of the sentence she would receive if she was to enter guilty pleas to those three charges in the near future. If she declines the indication and is found guilty at trial, the sentence indication will have no further effect. In that event the trial Judge will impose a sentence that reflects the overall gravity of the offending as established by the evidence at trial.
The facts
[3] A summary of facts has been prepared for sentence indication purposes. This states that Ms Bennet was a member of a group of persons who decided to hold a female victim hostage on two separate occasions because the leader of the group, Ms Rickylee Dixon, believed the victim had stolen methamphetamine from her. The object of the exercise was to extort money from the victim’s father as a form of compensation for the stolen methamphetamine.
[4] This plan initially led to an incident that occurred in the early hours of 12 September 2020 when the victim was forcibly abducted from her home at gunpoint. She was then taken to an address where she was beaten severely by several members of the group. The victim’s father paid the group several thousand dollars on this occasion to secure her release. The Crown accepts that Ms Bennet was not involve in this incident.
[5] Ms Bennet’s involvement began after the group abducted the victim again on the afternoon of 21 October 2020. Ms Bennet was not involved in this aspect of the incident. She was, however, present at a motel unit to which the victim was taken later in the evening. Ms Bennet’s presence at the motel is explained by the fact that at that time she was living with her mother another unit at the motel.
[6] The following morning, Ms Bennet was present when Ms Dixon told members of the group that they were not finished with the victim and that they were going to get more money from her. There followed a series of extremely serious assaults in which numerous members of the group struck the victim to the head and body using a variety of instruments. These included a baseball bat, gardening shears and a tomahawk. The gardening shears were used to pierce the victim’s lip. One of the assailants also bent the victim’s arm to the extent that her elbow fractured. At one stage several members of the group took the victim into a bedroom in the unit where the beating continued.
[7] Ms Bennet was not physically involved in any of the assaults. Nor was she inside the motel unit when they occurred. Instead, she closed the windows and then acted as a sentry outside whilst the victim was assaulted. This was captured on CCTV cameras the police later obtained from the motel.
[8] When the assaults concluded, the persons inside the unit wrapped the victim inside a rug. They then carried her outside and placed her on the tray of a utility vehicle parked at the address. As this occurred Ms Bennet and another member of the group shook rugs at the rear of the utility vehicle to prevent persons in the motel complex from seeing the victim being loaded onto the tray of the vehicle. The victim was then driven away from the scene. Ms Bennet remained at the motel unit and assisted in cleaning up evidence of the assault that had occurred within it.
Starting point
[9] In fixing the starting point I consider Ms Bennet’s role in the events I have described to be very similar to that played by another defendant, Ms Angela Dehar. Like Ms Bennet, Ms Dehar was not involved in the earlier incident on 12 September 2020 or the events that occurred during the afternoon and evening of 21 October 2020. However, she was at the motel unit and heard Ms Dixon say that they were not finished with the victim and were going to get more money from her. Ms Dehar then stood guard at the door inside the unit to prevent the victim from escaping. At one stage the victim moved towards the door as if to leave the unit. Ms Dehar prevented her from doing so by wedging it closed with her foot and telling the victim she could not leave.
[10] Like Ms Bennet, Ms Dehar shook a rug at the rear of the utility vehicle to disguise the fact that other members of the group were loading the victim onto the rear tray of the vehicle. Ms Dehar then left the motel complex in the vehicle and did not assists in cleaning up the unit. In sentencing Ms Dehar I took a starting point of four years six months imprisonment.5
[11] For the Crown, Ms McConachy acknowledges Ms Bennet’s culpability is slightly less than that of Ms Dehar. She submits a starting point of four years three months imprisonment is appropriate. Mr Burroughs contends on Ms Bennet’s behalf that her culpability is significantly less than that of Ms Dehar and that a lesser starting point is accordingly appropriate.
[12] I consider Ms Bennet’s overall culpability to be broadly similar to that of Ms Dehar. However, it is slightly less because Ms Dehar took active steps to prevent the victim from leaving the unit when she tried to do so. Ms Dehar would also have had a much clearer idea of the nature of the bearing the victim was receiving than would Ms Bennet. The fact that Ms Bennet assisted to clean the motel unit is to be balanced against the fact that Ms Dehar left the motel in the vehicle that carried the victim on the rear tray. Having regard to those factors I consider a starting point of four years imprisonment is appropriate in Ms Bennet’s case.
Mitigating factors
[13] The only mitigating factor for which I would be prepared to give credit at this stage is that for guilty pleas. Other defendants who received sentence indications late last year received a discount of 20 per cent. Mr Burroughs seeks the same discount for his client, whilst the Crown contends a discount of around 15 per cent is appropriate.
[14] Although it may be regarded as generous I would apply a discount of ten months, or 20 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas if they are entered at this point. In doing so I acknowledge that Mr Burroughs was in contact with the Crown regarding the possibility of a sentence indication in December 2021.
5 R v Dehar [2021] NZHC 3504 at [7].
Indicated sentence
[15] The indicated sentence at this stage is therefore one of three years two months imprisonment. Further discounts may be available at sentencing based on any further material the Court may have in its possession at that stage.
Time for acceptance
[16] Mr Burroughs is to advise the Court and the Crown whether Ms Bennet accepts the indication no later than 3 pm on Wednesday 9 March 2022. If she does, she will be arraigned in the High Court at Hamilton on Friday 11 March 2022 at 9 am.
Lang J
0