Legal Research
Cases
R v Larkins

R v Larkins

Case [2023] NZHC 2545 12 September 2023

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-419-000026

[2023] NZHC 2545

THE KING

v

IAN LARKINS

Hearing: 12 September 2023

Appearances:

R Mann for the Crown

W Rhodes for Mr Larkins

Sentencing:

12 September 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Counsel: W Rhodes, Barrister, Auckland

R v LARKINS [2023] NZHC 2545 [12 September 2023]

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

Factual background

[3] At the time you pleaded guilty you accepted the contents of a Summary of Facts dated 13 March 2023. Although you are familiar with the facts it is necessary for me to summarise them in my decision. I repeat the summary from my sentencing decision of Beau-James Paul,4 one of your co-offenders who, like you, pleaded guilty to the same three charges during the trial.

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

[5] 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.

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 202C(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Paul [2023] NZHC 1985.

[6] 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…

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 Larkins

Details

AGLC: R v Larkins [2023] NZHC 2545
Case: [2023] NZHC 2545
Decision Date: 12 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Larkins involves Ian Larkins, who, along with several co-defendants, was charged with offences arising from a significant riot at Waikeria Prison during the New Year of 2020/2021. Larkins pleaded guilty to three representative charges: arson with a danger to life, riotous damage, and assault with a weapon. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of Larkins's involvement in the riot and his personal circumstances.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included the basis for Larkins's liability for the charges, the appropriate starting point for sentencing, and the extent to which mitigating factors should reduce his sentence. The court also had to consider the totality principle to ensure that the cumulative sentences did not result in a disproportionate punishment.

In its reasoning, the court first established the starting point for sentencing by considering the aggravating factors of the offence, such as the scale of the damage, the risk to life, and the impact on the victims. The court then assessed the mitigating factors, including Larkins's guilty plea, his personal background, and his previous convictions. The court applied a discount for Larkins's guilty plea and his personal background but did not reduce his sentence for totality reasons, considering the gravity of his current and previous offences.

The outcome of the case was that Larkins was sentenced to seven years and 10 months' imprisonment for the charge of arson, to be served cumulatively with his current sentence, and five years' imprisonment for each of the other two charges, to be served concurrently with each other and with the arson sentence. The court also discharged Larkins on the remaining charges related to the riot.

Orders