Legal Research
Cases
R v Cassidy

R v Cassidy

Case [2022] NZHC 2918 8 November 2022

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-092-11754

[2022] NZHC 2918

THE KING

v

PAUL CASSIDY

Date of hearing: 8 November 2022

Appearances:

L P Radich for the Crown S Tait for Mr Cassidy

Date of sentence:

8 November 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
S Tait, Barrister, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau

R v CASSIDY [2022] NZHC 2918 [8 November 2022]

[1] Mr Cassidy, as you know, I am today to sentence you on your convictions for intentional damage (x 3),1 participation in an organised criminal group2 and aggravated burglary.3

[2] Your guilty pleas to those charges followed my indication you were likely to be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of no more than five years,4 subject to any personal mitigating factors. Subject to any influential new information, that indication now is binding on me.5

Your offending

[3] I need first to cover off the background to your offending, to let people know the conduct for which I am now sentencing you.

[4] During daylight hours on 20 November 2020, there were a series of linked firearms incidents in Auckland’s Ōtara. These were in apparent inter-gang retaliation for actions carried out against another member of your gang, Michael Crawford, who led the offending. The incidents included drive-by shootings at three Ōtara addresses, leading to the intentional damage charges against you, and an armed home invasion at a fourth address, leading to the aggravated burglary charge against you. All were of properties associated with the other gang.

[5] You were a member of your gang’s Facebook Messenger group chat, on which the incidents were co-ordinated. You drove one of the vehicles, and owned the other, involved in the aggravated burglary. Together with others of your gang, you earlier had gathered at Mr Crawford’s home, from which vehicles dispatched in convoy to the respective addresses. And, obviously, you have pleaded guilty.

[6] People living at two of the targeted addresses have filed statements explaining the extreme terror they felt for themselves and their children and grandchildren at risk of being shot in the vicinity of their homes, including actual bullet damage to their

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 269(1): maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 98A: maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 232: maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Cassidy [2022] NZHC 1951 at [21].
5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 116(2).

houses. Your offending had continuing impact on their feelings of safety and confidence in their neighbourhood for quite some time afterwards, pushing some to relocate. They say they should not have been put under those pressures. I understand their views of your offending, and encourage you also to reflect upon the impact of your offending from their perspective. I did not have those statements at the time I gave my sentencing indication, but there is nothing in them materially affecting my indication.

Personal circumstances

[7]I turn to your personal circumstances. You are…

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 Cassidy

Details

AGLC: R v Cassidy [2022] NZHC 2918
Case: [2022] NZHC 2918
Decision Date: 8 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Cassidy involved the sentencing of Paul Cassidy for multiple charges, including intentional damage, participation in an organised criminal group, and aggravated burglary. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Mr Cassidy, considering the nature and circumstances of his offending, as well as his personal circumstances.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate starting point for the sentencing of Mr Cassidy, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principles of sentencing. The court considered the impact of Mr Cassidy's offending on the victims, his role in the offending, and his personal history, including his criminal history and background.

The court, Jagose J, determined that the starting point for Mr Cassidy's sentencing should be eight years' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of his offending and the aggravating factors present. However, the court applied discounts for Mr Cassidy's guilty pleas, his background, and the issue of totality with his current prison sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Mr Cassidy to four years and three months' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on his current sentence.

In summary, the court found Mr Cassidy's offending to be serious and aggravating, but also took into account his personal circumstances and the discounts available. The final sentence reflects the principles of sentencing and the need to hold Mr Cassidy accountable for his actions.

Orders