R v Fruean - [2015] NZHC 1670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 1670

THE QUEEN

v

CRUZ SONNY KIPA FRUEAN

Hearing: 10 and 17 July 2015

Appearances:

M J Hammer for Crown
R Mansfield for Defendant

Judgment:

17 July 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v FRUEAN [2015] NZHC 1670 [17 July 2015]

[1] Mr Fruean, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of arson, causing riotous damage and assault with intent to injure. Those charges carry maximum sentences of between 14 and three years imprisonment. The most serious of the charges is that of arson, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

Background

[2] All of the charges arise out of a riot that occurred at the Spring Hill Correctional Facility on the weekend of 1 June 2013. This caused significant damage to the facility, and has required repairs costing more than $5 million.

[3] The riot took place in Unit 16B, which was a medium security unit. The unit contains two pods, each of which held around 45 prisoners. You were being held in one of the pods at the time.

[4] The riot began when prisoners were released from their pods for morning exercise. At that point, corrections officers noticed that some of the prisoners appeared to be intoxicated. After a short period of time, scuffles and fights broke out. When corrections staff moved to intervene, matters escalated quickly. Some of the officers were trapped in the yard with prisoners who became more and more aggressive. These officers were eventually able to make their way through to the staff base, where other officers were barricaded. The prisoners then began attacking the staff base using poles and other objects in an effort to gain entry. Ultimately the corrections officers had to abandon the staff base, and prisoners entered it. They then smashed a large amount of furniture and equipment from both the staff base and the dining and kitchen areas. They also lit fires in the yard, some of which were up against the walls of buildings. This caused significant consternation for inmates who were locked in cells nearby.

[5] It took some considerable time for the situation to be brought under control. Order was eventually restored when the prison authorities sent in a control and restraint team. This was necessary to enable the Fire Service to gain access to the premises so that they could put out the fires the prisoners had lit.

[6] Your involvement in these events occurred because you placed chairs and a mattress on a fire that had been lit by other prisoners. You also used an unknown object to hit the staff base door and windows. When staff vacated the staff base, you climbed in and out of the staff base window carrying television sets and keyboards. You threw these out into the pod. You also assisted prisoners to remove files from the staff base.

[7] The charge of assault with intent to injure was laid…

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 Fruean

Details

AGLC: R v Fruean [2015] NZHC 1670
Case: [2015] NZHC 1670
Decision Date: 17 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Cruz Sonny Kipa Fruean was heard for sentencing on 10 and 17 July 2015. Mr Fruean had pleaded guilty to arson, causing riotous damage, and assault with intent to injure, charges which carry maximum sentences of between 14 and three years imprisonment. The dispute arose from a riot at the Spring Hill Correctional Facility on the weekend of 1 June 2013, which resulted in significant damage to the facility and repairs costing over $5 million. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Mr Fruean's role in the riot, taking into account his involvement in the arson, the damage caused, and the assault on a member of the control and restraint team.

The court considered the starting point for the arson charge, noting that Mr Fruean was not a ringleader but added fuel to the fire by placing chairs and a mattress on it. The Crown proposed a starting point of five to five and a half years imprisonment, which the court accepted, albeit with a slight adjustment to five years due to the nature of his actions. The court also added six months for the riotous damage and another six months for the assault charge, which was deemed serious enough to warrant separate recognition. Aggravating factors such as Mr Fruean's history of violent offending led to an additional uplift of two months, resulting in a starting point of six years two months imprisonment. Mitigating factors, including late guilty pleas and the avoidance of a lengthy trial, resulted in a discount of one year six months. After considering the principle of totality, the court applied a further discount of six months, resulting in a final sentence of four years two months imprisonment for the arson charge and six months for the other charges, to be served concurrently.

Orders