R v Inia - [2015] NZHC 873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-003858 [2015] NZHC 873

THE QUEEN

v

TOOTS INIA

Hearing: 30 April 2015

Appearances:

M J Robb for Crown
C Bean for Defendant

Judgment:

30 April 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J

R v INIA [2015] NZHC 873 [30 April 2015]

Charges

[1] Mr Inia, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary. As Mr Bean will have told you, that charge carries a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.

Relevant facts

[2] On the morning of 29 March 2014, you and another person went to a residential address. In the driveway of the house, you found an unlocked car which contained the keys to the garage on the property. Using the keys the two of you entered the garage and located a gun safe which was inside the garage. The two of you then used tools to break open the safe and took its contents, which apparently included, according to the summary of facts, nine firearms and ammunition, together with gun accessories such as scopes and suppressors. According to the owner of the firearms, the stolen equipment had a combined value of about $9,000. Your presence at the property was confirmed by fingerprints which you left on the gun safe.

[3] The owner of the firearms identified one of them as having been used in an aggravated robbery some ten days later, and that has led to people associated with you facing charges of aggravated robbery and attempted murder.

[4] You first appeared on 30 May 2014, facing a number of charges including the present charge of burglary. There was a trial call-over on 16 December 2014. Later that month you absconded from EM bail. I record at this point Mr Bean’s submission that you simply went next door, but the fact is that you were outside your EM bail area and you therefore must be treated as having absconded.

[5] At a pre-trial hearing on 12 March 2015, from which of course you were absent, a charge of aggravated burglary against you was dismissed.

[6] A warrant was issued for your arrest and you were subsequently arrested and brought before the Court on 18 March 2015. Bail was refused. You subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary.

Victim impact statements

[7] I have been given a victim impact statement from the owner of the stolen firearms. He described them as a collection of quality sporting rifles. He cannot afford to replace them. He has had to repair his gun safe, replace all the locks on his house and garage, and install an alarm system. He was a recreational hunter, but without his own rifles he can no longer do this unless he is able to borrow a rifle. He seeks a reparation order for $10,900, being the value of the rifles and the costs of repairs.

Pre-sentence report

[8] Your pre-sentence report records that your father is associated with the Black Power gang.…

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 Inia

Details

AGLC: R v Inia [2015] NZHC 873
Case: [2015] NZHC 873
Decision Date: 30 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Inia involved the sentencing of Toot Inia for a charge of burglary. Inia, who had pleaded guilty, was found to have participated in the burglary of a residential property where firearms were stolen. The court heard victim impact statements and considered Inia’s pre-sentence report, which revealed his gang affiliations and lack of employment. The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the adjustments to be made based on both the nature of the offence and Inia’s personal circumstances.

The court began by establishing a starting point for the sentence, considering the seriousness of the burglary, the value of the stolen items, and Inia’s deliberate targeting of firearms. The Crown argued for a higher starting point based on Inia’s gang association and the subsequent use of stolen firearms in another crime, but the court found that the inherent risk of stolen firearms being used in crime was already accounted for in the starting point. After reviewing comparable cases, the court set the starting point at 20 months’ imprisonment.

Next, the court assessed personal factors such as Inia’s prior offending, age, and guilty plea. The court did not increase the starting point for prior offending but did reduce it by 20% due to Inia’s youth, resulting in a sentence of 16 months. The guilty plea discount was set at three months, reducing the sentence further to 13 months. The court imposed special release conditions to aid in Inia’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Finally, the court ordered Inia to pay reparation of $5,000, acknowledging the difficulty this would pose for him.

In summary, Inia was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment with special release conditions and ordered to pay $5,000 in reparation.

Orders