Legal Research
Cases
R v Huritu

R v Huritu

Case [2023] NZHC 1960 26 July 2023

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Use of Actual and Threatened Violence

Scale of the Offending

Aggravating Features of Offending

Sentencing

Guilty Plea

Personal Circumstances

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 [36] AND

FOOTNOTE 8. 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-2021-072-000048

[2023] NZHC 1960

THE KING

v

LEON HURITU

Hearing: 26 July 2023

Appearances:

R Mann for the Crown W Nabney for Mr Huritu

Sentencing:

26 July 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Counsel:
W Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga

R v HURITU [2023] NZHC 1960 [26 July 2023]

[1] Mr Huritu, you were one of 11 defendants who went to trial on charges arising out of the rioting at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Six of your co-defendants pleaded guilty to amalgamated charges prior to the trial.

[2] Four weeks into the trial you and six other defendants pleaded guilty to three representative charges: arson (with a danger to life),1 riotous damage,2 and assault with a weapon.3 The three charges are an amalgamation of charges in the Crown Charge Notice dated 28 June 2022. At the time you pleaded guilty you accepted the contents of a summary of facts dated 13 March 2023.

Factual background

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

[4] On the morning of 29 December 2020 an incident occurred in one of the exercise yards, yard 116, when a prisoner refused to return a disposable razor (or razors) to a Corrections officer. Several other prisoners offered that prisoner their support. You were not one of those prisoners. You were not, in fact, in yard 116 at the time. When a Corrections officer told those in the yard they would all be returned to their cells early if the razors were not surrendered, a number of prisoners in the yard told the Corrections officer they were not going anywhere and were ready for a fight. Eventually one razor was handed in, the situation was defused and tensions eased. The prisoners in yard 116 were then permitted to remain in the yard for the usual period.

[5] By around 1.00 pm a significantly more hostile atmosphere had developed in yard 116. Nine of the prisoners (the group) set in train the events that led to the riot. They damaged property in the yard. They lit fires on top of the wooden seats and structures inside the yard. Efforts made by Corrections officers and firefighters to extinguish the fires were thwarted by members of the group of nine shielding the fires with their bodies and various items. They also covered security cameras with toilet paper and threatened Corrections officers with assault if they attempted to enter 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…

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 Huritu

Details

AGLC: R v Huritu [2023] NZHC 1960
Case: [2023] NZHC 1960
Decision Date: 26 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Huritu [2023] NZHC 1960 concerns the sentencing of Leon Huritu, who pleaded guilty to charges of arson with a danger to life, riotous damage, and assault with a weapon arising from the riot at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Huritu's co-defendants either pleaded guilty prior to the trial or during the trial. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Huritu, considering the severity of his crimes, his personal background, and the impact of his actions.

The court identified several aggravating features of Huritu's offending, including the use of actual and threatened violence, the extent of loss and damage, the scale of the offending, the risk of injury to prison staff and prisoners, and the impact on the victims. The court also took into account the mitigating factors, such as Huritu's guilty plea and his personal circumstances, including his background and exposure to violence and gang culture from a young age. After considering all these factors, the court determined a global starting point of nine years and six months' imprisonment, with a final sentence of seven years and 10 months' imprisonment for the charge of arson, and five years' imprisonment each for the charges of riotous damage and assault with a weapon, to be served concurrently.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sentence. The severity of the crimes and the impact on the victims must be balanced against the defendant's personal circumstances and any mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea or a troubled background. In this case, the court found that Huritu's personal circumstances, including his exposure to violence and gang culture from a young age, contributed to his offending, but ultimately determined that the severity of his crimes warranted a significant sentence.

Orders