Legal Research
Cases
R v Harrison

R v Harrison

Case [2014] NZHC 2705 31 October 2014

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Life Imprisonment

Final Warning

Three Strikes Legislation

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-096-2316 [2014] NZHC 2705

THE QUEEN

v

SHANE PIERRE HARRISON DILLIN PAKAI

Hearing: 31 October 2014

Counsel:

G J Burston and J A Eng for the Crown
S J Gill for Harrison
K R Smith and C Tenet for Pakai

Sentence:

31 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Normally I would require you both to stand at this point. However there is quite a bit to go through, particularly in relation to you Mr Harrison because of the three strikes legislation. You can therefore remain seated for now but you will be asked to stand when I formally pass sentence on you. I am going to start with you Mr Pakai and because of that I would actually like you two to switch places in the dock
please. Thank you very much.

R v HARRISON [2014] NZHC 2705 [31 October 2014]

Mr Pakai

Convictions

[2] Mr Pakai, you appear for sentencing on your convictions for murder1 and reckless discharge of a firearm2 following your jury trial before me last month. You are also to be sentenced on your convictions for reckless discharge of a firearm3 and unlawful possession of a firearm4 following your guilty pleas entered before trial.

[3] Because of your conviction for murder you were given a first strike warning when I entered the conviction at the conclusion of the trial. You will be given a document setting out that warning in writing.

Circumstances of offending

[4] The events which gave rise to your offending took place on the evening of

22 August 2013. You and Mr Harrison are members of the Rogues chapter of the Mongrel Mob. The two of you decided to pay a visit on [Mr EE], who was a member of [a different chapter of the Mongrel Mob]. It is apparent from the evidence that [Mr EE] was involved in methamphetamine. It appears that your intended visit was because of that.

[5] When the two of you arrived at his flat he was not home. [Mr EE] had been smoking methamphetamine and had gone somewhere to “reload”.5 His partner, [Ms MN], was alone in their flat. You entered their flat and took [Ms MN’s] cell phone, a small amount of cannabis that was lying around, a packet of cigarettes and a pipe for smoking methamphetamine. [Mr EE] also thought you took some gang regalia although the evidence as to whether you in fact did so is not so clear. After taking these various items you left.

[6] [Ms MN] was upset by this intrusion. After several attempts she managed to make contact with [Mr EE] and told him what had happened. He was very angry. He

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 66.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 53(3); Crimes Act 1961, s 66.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 198(2)…

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 Harrison

Details

AGLC: R v Harrison [2014] NZHC 2705
Case: [2014] NZHC 2705
Decision Date: 31 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Shane Pierre Harrison and Dillin Pakai, were convicted of various offences, including murder, following a gang-related confrontation. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The primary legal issues before the court were the sentencing of the defendants for their respective crimes and the application of the three strikes legislation to Harrison's case. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for each defendant, considering the nature and circumstances of their offending, their personal backgrounds, and the impact on the victims and their families. For Pakai, the court imposed a life sentence for murder, with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years and 3 months. For the other charges, the court imposed concurrent sentences of 27 months and 24 months imprisonment. The court found that Pakai's age and lack of remorse warranted a discount on the minimum non-parole period. For Harrison, the court imposed a life sentence for murder, with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years, and an 18-month sentence for reckless discharge of a firearm. The court determined that ordering Harrison to serve a life sentence without parole would be manifestly unjust, considering his qualifying offence was relatively minor and occurred before the three strikes legislation was enacted. The court also issued a final warning to Harrison regarding future convictions of serious violent offences. The court granted an order for the destruction of the firearm used in the crime and dismissed a charge of attempting to supply a class A drug against Harrison, given the sentence already imposed. The court also cancelled the first strike warning given to Harrison in error at the conclusion of the trial.

Orders