R v Kite - [2018] NZHC 409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-004-006518

[2018] NZHC 409

THE QUEEN

v

JOSHUA MASON KITE

Hearing: 9 March 2018

Appearances:

H Steele for the Crown

A Cresswell for the Defendant

Sentence:

9 March 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
Annabel Cresswell, Barrister, Auckland

R v JOSHUA MASON KITE [2018] NZHC 409 [9 March 2018]

[1] Mr Kite, you appear before me today for sentencing on a number of charges relating to offending in Auckland and Whangarei.

[2] On 22 November 2017, Moore J directed that the Whangarei charges be transferred to be sentenced together with the Auckland charges.

Offences

[3] You have pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply under s 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. You pleaded guilty to that charge in the Auckland High Court on 6 October 2017.

[4] You also pleaded guilty to the following charges in the Whangarei District Court on 17 November 2017, two charges of failing to stop for red and blue lights under ss 52 and 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998; one charge of dangerous driving under s 35(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998; one charge of using a firearm against a constable under s 198A(1) of the Crimes Act 1961; two charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle under s 226(1) of the Crimes Act 1961; one charge of impersonating Police under s 48(3) of the Policing Act 2008; and one charge of carrying a firearm, except for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose under s 45(1) of the Arms Act 1983.

Facts in relation to Auckland offending

[5] On 18 May 2015, you were released on parole from Rimutaka Prison where you were serving a sentence of 11 years and eight months’ imprisonment for three offences of aggravated robbery and nine offences of using a document for a pecuniary advantage.

[6] On 8 June 2016, a search warrant was executed by Police at your home address, 55 Boundary Road, Clover Park, Auckland.

[7] In your bedroom, Police found four snap-lock bags containing methamphetamine, weighing a total of 93 grams and $40,900 cash, found mainly in a boot bag.

[8]At the time, you were still subject to parole for your earlier offending.

[9] As a result of what was uncovered at your home, a parole recall warrant was issued on the same day.

Facts in relation to Whangarei offending

[10] In the early hours of 26 August 2016, at about 12.45 am, you were travelling south on Western Hills Drive, Whangarei, in a Subaru Legacy.

[11] You stopped at the bequest of Constable Morris, who was working alone, after you became aware of the red and blue flashing lights and sirens directing you to pull over. When asked by Constable Morris for your details, you replied that your name was “Jamahl Beattie”.

[12] You…

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 Kite

Details

AGLC: R v Kite [2018] NZHC 409
Case: [2018] NZHC 409
Decision Date: 9 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Mason Kite appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing on multiple charges. The court considered the nature and gravity of the charges, which included possession of methamphetamine for supply, multiple instances of failing to stop for police, dangerous driving, using a firearm against a police officer, impersonating a police officer, and unlawfully taking vehicles. The court evaluated the aggravating factors such as the use of a firearm, the significant harm caused, and the offender's prior convictions, as well as the mitigating factors including the offender's guilty pleas and remorse.

The court determined the starting points for the sentences based on the severity of the crimes, considering precedents from similar cases. It calculated the appropriate uplifts for the totality of the offending, taking into account the offender's actions and the risk posed to the public. The court also assessed the offender's history and likelihood of reoffending, considering reports from health professionals. Ultimately, the court decided against imposing preventive detention, opting instead for a lengthy determinate sentence of eleven years and six months, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and nine months on the charge of using a firearm against a police officer. The court also imposed concurrent sentences for the other charges, a mandatory disqualification from driving, and ordered the destruction of the firearm and ammunition. The offender was also issued a first strike warning under the three strikes law.

Orders