Legal Research
Cases
R v Crawford

R v Crawford

Case [2022] NZHC 1588 5 July 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 1588

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL CRAWFORD

Hearing: 5 July 2022

Appearances:

J E Bragg and J R W Barley for the Crown Q Duff and W N Rhodes for the defendant

Judgment:

5 July 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

R v CRAWFORD [2022] NZHC 1588 [5 July 2022]

[1] Michael Crawford you come up for sentence today having pleaded guilty to four charges of intentional damage,1 one charge of aggravated burglary,2 two charges of unlawful possession of ammunition or explosives,3 one representative charge of unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm,4 and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group.5

The offending

[2] The charges for which you have now pleaded guilty took place between 16 November 2020 and 2 December 2020. They all relate to a series of linked firearms incidents in Otara. Four of these incidents involved drive-by shootings while a fifth involved an armed home invasion. You were charged alongside 7 other defendants, all also members or associates of the Killer Beez gang.

[3] Your role in these offences was extensive, being directly involved in the preparation and planning of what occurred. The offending appears to have been intended to be retaliation after your Killer Beez patch and motorcycle were taken by members of the Tribesmen gang.

[4] Your involvement in the offending began on 16 November 2020. You and your gang associates arrived in a convoy of seven vehicles to an address in Johnstone’s Road in Otara. You were armed with firearms. Upon arrival, you were met by members of the Tribesmen gang, also armed with firearms, and you began firing at each other. Several members of the public were forced to take evasive action to get to safety. The shooting caused damage to no less than nine addresses and it was simply good luck that no one was injured or killed.

[5] You subsequently took a lead role in planning the shootings that are subject to the remaining intentional damage charges. It is clear from the outset that firearms

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 269(1). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 232(1)(a). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$5000.
4      Arms Act 1983, s 50A. Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

were intended to be used and gang associates travelled from both Picton and Hamilton to your address in South Auckland in order to participate.

[6] On 20 November 2020, three convoys of vehicles departed your home with you personally leading the second convoy. Upon arrival at the address of a Tribesmen member on Otara Road, you got out of the car and fired multiple shots at the address. Immediately after this, you led the convoy to another Otara address…

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 Crawford

Details

AGLC: R v Crawford [2022] NZHC 1588
Case: [2022] NZHC 1588
Decision Date: 5 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Crawford was sentenced for various firearms-related charges, including intentional damage, aggravated burglary, and unlawful possession of ammunition and firearms. The charges related to a series of linked firearms incidents in Otara, involving drive-by shootings and an armed home invasion, allegedly in retaliation for an earlier incident involving the defendant's gang, the Killer Beez. The legal issues the court needed to decide included setting an appropriate starting point for sentencing, determining whether uplifts or discounts were warranted for certain charges, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court set a starting point of six years' imprisonment for the intentional damage charges, considering aggravating factors such as the brazen and reckless use of firearms, disregard for public safety, and the concentration of weapons and gang associates. The court also imposed uplifts for the remaining charges, such as participation in an organised criminal group and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, to account for the totality of the offending. Personal factors, such as the defendant's criminal history and guilty pleas, resulted in a 30% discount to the starting point. The final sentence was seven years and four months' imprisonment, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The court also issued a second first strike warning under the three strikes law.

Orders