Sentencing: 9 February 2018

Counsel:

C H Macklin and A D Hill for Crown
S N B Wimsett and S Teppett for George Jolley
S J Lance for Robert Dashwood
A T I Sykes and E A Whiley for Cramer McMeeking
L Te Kani and D H Hall for Chadwick Matapuku
M M Dorset and G Fairbrother for Christopher Jolley

Judgment:

9 February 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch, Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
A Sykes & Co, Barrister and Solicitors, Rotorua
Bennion Law, Wellington
L L Te Kani, Ahuriri Chambers, Rotorua
Families Matter Law Practice, Rotorua

Counsel: S N B Wimsett, Barrister, Auckland
S Teppett, Lorne Street Chambers, Auckland
S J Lance, Barrister, Auckland
M M Dorset, Ahuriri Chambers, Rotorua
G Fairbrother, Ahuriri Chambers, Wellington

R v JOLLEY & ORS [2018] NZHC 93 [9 February 2018]

Introduction

[1] George Jolley, Robert Dashwood, Cramer McMeeking, Chadwick Matapuku, and Christopher Jolley, you were each found guilty following trial by jury on one or more charges arising from an altercation that took place on Turner Drive, Western Heights, on 11 December 2015. You now appear before me for sentence.

Facts

[2] You are all members, associates or supporters of the Mangu Kaha chapter of the Black Power gang. In the lead-up to the offending, there were rising tensions in Rotorua between Mangu Kaha and the Mongrel Mob. Those tensions escalated when a young woman and her partner moved into a house at 109 Turner Drive, which Mangu Kaha considered to be within its territory. The young woman’s father or his associates appear to have been connected to the Mongrel Mob.

[3] A couple of days before the altercation on 11 December, someone smashed several windows of the Turner Drive property. The tenants decided to move out, so as not to risk any further attacks. The young woman’s father and several of his associates helped with the move which took place on 11 December 2015. They began loading furniture and other items onto a trailer parked at the address.

[4] While they were doing that, a vehicle driven by a Mangu Kaha member drove slowly past, apparently scoping out the scene. Shortly afterwards at least two vehicles (one of them a van) full of Mangu Kaha members and associates arrived. Other Mangu Kaha members possibly arrived on foot. In total, 20 to 30
Mangu Kaha members and associates descended on 109 Turner Drive, many of them carrying weapons. They congregated along the fence line. The jury found that all five of you were part of that group. Further, with the exception of Christopher Jolley, the jury found that all of you shared the common objective of causing grievous bodily harm (that is, really serious harm) to one or more of the people…

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 Jolley

Details

AGLC: R v Jolley [2018] NZHC 93
Case: [2018] NZHC 93
Decision Date: 9 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jolley involved five defendants who were members, associates, or supporters of the Mangu Kaha chapter of the Black Power gang, charged with various offences stemming from an altercation on Turner Drive, Western Heights, on 11 December 2015. The altercation involved tensions between Mangu Kaha and the Mongrel Mob, escalating after a young woman and her partner moved into a house within Mangu Kaha's claimed territory. The defendants were found guilty of various charges, including possession of offensive weapons, participation in an organised criminal group, and attempted murder.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, focusing on holding the defendants accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, and deterring future offending. The court examined the gravity of the offending, the level of culpability, and the seriousness of the offences in comparison to other cases. Each defendant's sentence was determined based on their individual involvement and culpability, taking into account the totality of their offending.

The court sentenced the defendants to various terms of imprisonment, with the most serious charge being participation in an organised criminal group. The court noted the defendants' willingness to support gang-related criminal activities, which contributed to the escalation of the altercation and the potential for serious harm. Personal factors, previous convictions, and the totality principle were also considered in determining the appropriate sentences for each defendant.

Orders