R v Corbin - [2016] NZHC 2570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-7255 [2016] NZHC 2570

THE QUEEN

v

DYLAN RAYMOND SHANNON CORBIN ALBERT HOLLIS MAUHENI

Hearing: 27 October 2016

Appearances:

B Hawes for Crown
T Fournier for Defendant Corbin
P Allan for Defendant Mauheni

Judgment:

27 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] Dylan Corbin and Albert Mauheni, each of you are for sentence this morning on a charge of kidnapping which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Given your conviction on that charge, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am required by the Sentencing Act to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice which contains a list of these “serious violent offences”.

[2] If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offence other than murder committed after this warning and if the Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

[3] If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly

R v CORBIN [2016] NZHC 2570 [27 October 2016]

unjust to do so. In that event, the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[4] Mr Mauheni, you pleaded guilty before trial to being a party to the kidnapping of Dawson Reihana. Mr Corbin, you were found guilty at trial to being a party to that unlawful detainment. You were found not guilty on a charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Factual background

[5] To provide context for your sentencing this morning it is necessary that I set out the factual background. I will refer to your particular involvement in the later part of these events when I come to assess your individual sentences. This offending was gang-related. The victim, Mr Reihana, had an association with the Mongrel Mob. Your co-offenders, as with yourself, were or are either members or associates of that group.

[6] On 8 August last year, Mr Reihana was invited to the address of one of your co-offenders in Ajax Street. There Mr Reihana was attacked by three of your co- offenders and other unidentified associates. The attack involved him being struck with hammers to his head and knees. His hands and feet were bound and the beating continued while he was in that defenceless position.

[7] A decision was made to take Mr Reihana to a different address. A gag was placed in his mouth and a rope tied around his legs. He was placed in the back of a van and transported to Bowenvale Avenue. Here he was physically held captive and subject to further physical attacks. This involved the use of knuckledusters and being attacked in the head.

[8] In the course of Mr Reihana’s detention, he was driven in the back of a van in a bound state for…

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 Corbin

Details

AGLC: R v Corbin [2016] NZHC 2570
Case: [2016] NZHC 2570
Decision Date: 27 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dylan Corbin and Albert Mauheni were sentenced for their involvement in the kidnapping of Dawson Reihana, which involved violent attacks and prolonged unlawful detention. The defendants were both members or associates of the Mongrel Mob gang. The case involved determining the appropriate sentences for their roles in the crime, which were distinct but both involved aiding in the continued unlawful detention of the victim. The court needed to decide on the starting point for their sentences, the appropriate uplifts or discounts for personal factors, and the suitability of home detention for one of the defendants.

The court started by setting a baseline sentence for kidnapping, considering the defendants' limited and late involvement in the crime. For Dylan Corbin, the court set a starting point of two years and three months, with a two-month uplift due to his ongoing involvement in violent offending. For Albert Mauheni, the starting point was two years, with a two-month credit for remorse and willingness to engage in restorative justice, and a further credit of four and a half months for time spent on electronically monitored bail. Mauheni was also given a 15% discount for pleading guilty late in the proceedings. However, the court found the proposed residence for home detention unsuitable due to concerns about family violence and overcrowding, resulting in a sentence of 15 months imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention if a suitable residence could be found. Corbin was sentenced to two years and five months imprisonment.

In summary, Dylan Corbin was sentenced to two years and five months imprisonment, and Albert Mauheni was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention if a suitable residence is found.

Orders