R v Kameta - [2023] NZHC 965

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST: SEE [20]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-072-48

[2023] NZHC 965

THE KING

v

MANUTAKI HEEMI KAMETA

Hearing: 28 April 2023

Appearances:

R L Mann for Crown P Broad for Defendant

Sentence:

28 April 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v KAMETA [2023] NZHC 965 [28 April 2023]

[1] Mr Kameta, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one representative charge each of causing riotous damage,1 arson2 and assault with a weapon.3 The maximum sentence on the charge of arson is 14 years imprisonment. The maximum sentences on the other two charges are five and seven years imprisonment.

[2] You entered your pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 21 December 2022.4 I do not propose to repeat the factual background to your offending. It is set out in the sentence indication, and this will be attached to, and form part of, these remarks. In short, however, you were part of a group of prisoners who lit fires in a yard at Waikeria Prison on the afternoon of 29 December 2020. You then climbed onto the roof of the prison and assisted in freeing other prisoners by smashing the windows to their cells. Over the next three days the group on the roof roamed around the facility using a battering ram to enter areas of the prison that were locked. They lit multiple fires and damaged the building in other ways.

[3] You decided to surrender on 31 December 2020. When other members of the group learned of your intentions, they physically assaulted you. You nevertheless surrendered to the prison authorities and your role in the riot came to an end at that point.

The sentence indication

[4] I adopted a starting point of eight years four months imprisonment and applied a credit of 25 per cent, or two years one month, to reflect guilty pleas. I indicated that you may be entitled to credit for other mitigating factors identified at sentencing. I am now required to address these.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 90.
2      Section 267(1)(a).
3      Section 202C(1)(a).
4      R v Kameta [2022] NZHC 3629.

Additional mitigating factors

[5] Your counsel has now tendered a report under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. He submits the mitigating factors identified in the report justify an additional discount of around 15 per cent.

[6] The report was prepared using information you provided to the report writer. The report writer was unable to verify the information you provided with other members of your family, but I have no reason to doubt its veracity.

[7] The report notes that you had a very difficult upbringing. You had no relationship whatsoever with your father, who appears to have spent most of his life involved with gangs and in prisons. You only met him on two occasions. Your mother also had little to do with your upbringing. Your…

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 Kameta

Details

AGLC: R v Kameta [2023] NZHC 965
Case: [2023] NZHC 965
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, the case of The King v Manutaki Heemi Kameta was heard and sentenced on 28 April 2023. Mr Kameta pleaded guilty to charges of causing riotous damage, arson, and assault with a weapon, stemming from a riot at Waikeria Prison on 29 December 2020. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering any aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on the applicability of a minimum term of imprisonment.

The Court adopted a starting point of eight years and four months imprisonment, taking into account Mr Kameta's role in the riot, which was less significant than that of the leaders but still involved considerable risk to other prisoners. The Court applied a 25% discount for guilty pleas, amounting to two years and one month. Additionally, the Court allowed a further discount of one year, or 12%, for mitigating factors such as Mr Kameta's difficult upbringing, lack of education, and his efforts towards rehabilitation. This resulted in a total discount of three years and one month, reducing the sentence to five years and three months imprisonment. The Court did not impose a minimum term of imprisonment, finding that Mr Kameta was not an instigator or a major participant in the riot.

The final orders were that Mr Kameta be sentenced to five years and three months imprisonment on the charges of causing riotous damage and arson, and to three years imprisonment on the charge of assault with a weapon, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The effective sentence was five years and three months imprisonment. Additionally, the Court made an order suppressing the remarks from publication until the trial of Mr Kameta's co-defendants concluded.

Orders