R v Biddle - [2018] NZHC 2264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CCRI-2007-087-131

[2018] NZHC 2264

THE QUEEN

v

BENJAMIN BIDDLE

Hearing: 30 August 2018

Appearances:

O M Salt for Crown

N M Dutch for Defendant

Judgment:

30 August 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v BIDDLE [2018] NZHC 2264 [30 August 2018]

[1] Mr Biddle, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on charges of participating in an organised criminal group1 and rioting.2 The maximum penalty on the first charge is ten years imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalty on the second is two years imprisonment.

Background

[2] Your offending arose from a series of incidents that occurred in and around Whakatane on the afternoon of 17 January 2017.

[3] On that date members of the Black Power gang, with whom you are closely affiliated, became aware that a funeral procession comprising members and associates of the rival Mongrel Mob gang was to pass through Whakatane on its way to the crematorium just outside the town. You and others then went to various locations where you thought the funeral procession might enter the town. You were seen at various gatherings as members of the Black Power gang awaited the arrival of the funeral procession.

[4] The incident that gives rise to the charges was sparked by another incident that occurred in a service lane near Valley Road when the funeral procession entered the town. During that incident members and associates of the Black Power gang threw missiles at cars in the funeral procession. The Mongrel Mob predictably responded in a violent fashion. They discharged several shots in the direction of the Black Power group. A vehicle driven by members of the Mongrel Mob also endeavoured to run down members of the Black Power group as they fled from the service lane.

[5] You were with a group of people near Rex Morpeth Park at this time. Word quickly spread of the shooting and you went to your vehicle with others. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence that you were told the Mongrel Mob had shot at members of the Black Power. I do not accept your explanation to the police that you believed a member of the Black Power had actually been shot. You and others then drove to Arawa Road.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 87.

[6] You drove your vehicle up Arawa Road towards Valley Road. Persons in your car then offered taunts towards a large group of Mongrel Mob members who had got out of their cars and were standing at the intersection of Arawa Road and Valley Road. I am satisfied you deliberately drove your vehicle up the road and parked in a position where persons in your vehicle could challenge the Mongrel Mob and jeer taunts at them. You then drove your vehicle back up the street. Film footage shows that you stopped your…

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 Biddle

Details

AGLC: R v Biddle [2018] NZHC 2264
Case: [2018] NZHC 2264
Decision Date: 30 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Biddle was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, and involved the sentencing of Benjamin Biddle, who had been found guilty of participating in an organised criminal group and rioting. The proceedings took place on 30 August 2018, with O M Salt appearing for the Crown and N M Dutch for the defendant. The sentencing remarks were provided by Lang J. The central issue was to determine the appropriate sentence for Biddle considering the severity of his involvement in the criminal activities and his prior criminal history. The court needed to balance the culpability of Biddle's actions with relevant mitigating and aggravating factors to arrive at a fair and proportionate sentence.

The court addressed the legal issues by first establishing a starting point for Biddle's sentence, taking into account the sentences of other participants in the same incident. The starting point was set at three years and three months, similar to sentences given to other participants with comparable culpability. The court acknowledged that Biddle had driven to the scene with the intention to challenge the opposing gang, but did not consider this factor significant enough to increase the starting point. Aggravating factors such as Biddle's extensive criminal history were considered, but the court determined that the age of these convictions and the lack of remorse did not warrant an uplift in the sentence. On the mitigating side, the court granted a discount of five months to reflect the time Biddle had spent under restrictive electronic monitoring bail conditions. The final sentence for Biddle was two years and ten months for participating in an organised criminal group and nine months for rioting, to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of two years and ten months.

The court's final orders were that Benjamin Biddle would serve an effective sentence of two years and ten months, with the sentences for participating in an organised criminal group and rioting running concurrently. The court considered the appropriate balance between the severity of the crime, Biddle's culpability, and relevant mitigating factors in reaching this decision.

Orders