Legal Research
Cases
R v Haere

R v Haere

Case [2023] NZHC 1957 25 July 2023

Criminal Liability

Arson

Riotous Damage

Assault with a Weapon

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF SENTENCE INDICATION

GIVEN TO CO-DEFENDANT MATANGIRAU CUFF IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL CO-DEFENDANT CUFF HAS BEEN SENTENCED. REFER [35] AND

FOOTNOTE 9. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-021-072-000048

[2023] NZHC 1957

THE KING

v

GRAYSON HAERE

Hearing: 25 July 2023

Appearances:

R Mann for the Crown

C Taylor (on instructions from R Mansfield KC) and B Gloyn for Mr Haere

Sentencing:

25 July 2023

(REDACTED) SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Counsel:
R Mansfield KC, Barrister, Auckland C Taylor, Barrister, Ruakaka
B Gloyn, Barrister, Auckland

R v HAERE [2023] NZHC 1957 [25 July 2023]

[1] Grayson Haere, you appear before me for sentence having pleaded guilty to three representative charges: arson (with a danger to life);1 riotous damage;2 and assault with a weapon.3

[2] The three charges are an amalgamation of charges in the Crown Charge Notice dated 28 June 2022 and arise out of the riot at Waikeria Prison that lasted six days over the 2020/2021 New Year period.

[3] You were to have been sentenced by another Judge in May of this year. However, shortly before the sentencing date you asked for the sentencing to be adjourned so that you could be sentenced by me, the trial Judge for a number of your co-offenders who proceeded to trial.

[4] When you pleaded guilty, you accepted the contents of a summary of facts. When you sought the adjournment you said you also wished to refer to evidence from the trial of your co-offenders as regards your role.

The offending

[5] You were in custody in the High Security Facility at Waikeria Prison on remand at the time of the offending.

[6] On the morning of 29 December 2020 you were part of a group of 21 prisoners in one of the exercise yards, yard 116. There was an incident involving one of the prisoners in the yard (Matangirau Cuff) using a disposable razor (or razors) to give another prisoner (Arleye Tapara-Taipari) a haircut. As disposable razors were prohibited in the exercise yard a Corrections officer, supervising from the overbridge, who had seen what was happening, directed that the razor(s) be handed in. That request was not complied with. A principal Corrections officer then said that unless the razor(s) was/were surrendered, you would all be returned to your cells early. Members of your group said you were not going anywhere and were ready to fight. Eventually one razor was handed in and all of you were permitted to remain in the

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 267(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 90. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 202C(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment.

yard in accordance with the usual routine. The situation was defused and the mood in the yard was seen to improve.

[7] But…

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 Haere

Details

AGLC: R v Haere [2023] NZHC 1957
Case: [2023] NZHC 1957
Decision Date: 25 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Grayson Haere was sentenced for his involvement in a six-day riot at Waikeria Prison over the New Year period of 2020/2021. Haere pleaded guilty to three representative charges: arson (with a danger to life), riotous damage, and assault with a weapon. The court had to decide on the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending, as well as personal factors relevant to the defendant.

The court found that Haere played an active role in the riot, making phone calls to journalists to express the group's intentions, participating in lighting fires, and engaging in assaults on Corrections officers. The Crown argued for a starting point of between 11 years and three months and 12 years' imprisonment, while the defence submitted a starting point of seven years' imprisonment. The court considered the sentences passed on Haere's co-offenders and decided on a starting point of 11 years and six months' imprisonment for the arson charge, with an uplift of one year for the other two charges. This resulted in a global starting point of 12 years' imprisonment, which was reduced by six months to address disparity, resulting in an overall starting point of 11 years and six months' imprisonment.

The court then considered personal factors, such as Haere's guilty plea, remorse, and personal circumstances. The court allowed a 15% discount for the guilty plea, 5% for remorse, and 15% for personal circumstances, resulting in a total discount of 30% of the starting point. This resulted in an end sentence of eight years' imprisonment for Haere on the charge of arson, and five years' imprisonment on each of the charges of riotous damage and assault with a weapon. All sentences were to be served concurrently.

The judge did not impose a minimum term of imprisonment, as it had not been imposed on Haere's co-offenders, and there was no real distinction between their cases that would warrant a different approach. Haere was also discharged under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the remaining charges that he faced arising out of the riot at Waikeria Prison.

Orders