R v Lawson
[2020] NZHC 1813
•24 July 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE
CRI-2018-225-000004
[2020] NZHC 1813
THE QUEEN v
DAVID DEAN LAWSON
Hearing: 24 July 2020 Counsel:
S N McKenzie and W Chapman for the Crown S Vidal for the Defendant
Judgment:
24 July 2020
SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J
[1] I will just begin by thanking [the victim’s mother] for coming to Court again, reading that victim impact report.
[2] Mr Lawson, I hope you heard what she was saying and that you understand what she was saying about Phillip O’Brien, the victim. He was not actually a member of Mangu Kaha. He was just a young man. He wasn’t very well equipped to deal with a whole gang environment and, as a result of the attack on him, he was nearly killed and his life has been changed forever. So has the life of his family. That is because of the way he found himself involved in a gang situation. Part of the reason why he suffered is because you, as one of the Mongrel Mob, assisted in that attack on him. So, you need to think about that and think about where your involvement with your Mongrel Mob brothers has got you, not just for you but also for the people who have become affected by your offending.
R v LAWSON [2020] NZHC 1813 [24 July 2020]
[3] You pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of an offensive weapon and unlawfully being in an enclosed yard. You are now before the Court for sentencing.
[4] Your offending was related to the way a group of Mongrel Mob members attacked a young man in South Invercargill on 16 February 2018.
[5] You originally faced more serious charges but pleaded guilty to the ones I have just mentioned on 17 December 2019. There has been quite a delay until this sentencing hearing. This has been at your counsel’s request so the defence could obtain a report from a psychologist, Mr Prince, to assist you with your sentencing.
Factual background
[6]I need to go through the factual background.
[7] At approximately 5.15 pm on 16 February 2018, the victim and three other young people were walking together on a street in South Invercargill. It was a residential area. Just ordinary members of the public live nearby. The victim, a 23 year old man, was wearing a Mangu Kaha t-shirt.
[8] Three vehicles occupied by approximately 10 Mongrel Mob members or associates intercepted the group. One vehicle parked directly next to the victim. The front passenger was seen to point a firearm out of the window at the victim and pull the trigger twice, but the firearm failed to fire.
[9] The occupants got out of their vehicles and several approached the victim. A witness reported a second person as carrying a firearm and presenting it at the witness. Indications were that two firearms were presented by people within the group. A number had other weapons with them.
[10] The group seriously assaulted the victim, punching and kicking him while he was on the ground. Clothing, including his Mangu Kaha t-shirt, cell phone and cap were taken. During the assault, one person produced a knife and stabbed the victim five times in the lower back.
[11] After the assault, the three vehicles left the scene in different directions. One occupant pointed something at a witness that may have been a firearm. As that vehicle drove away, the victim’s cap was thrown out of a window.
[12] The victim was hospitalised with what the summary of facts described as “potentially life-threatening injuries”, including lacerations to his liver, kidney and spleen.
[13] The attack was unprovoked. During the attack, people within the attacking group chanted obscenities linking them to the Mongrel Mob.
[14] One of the vehicles at the scene was a BMW belonging to you. You were subject to GPS tracking as part of release conditions beginning on 17 October 2017, enabling the Police to track your movements. GPS tracking data indicated you went to your co-offender Tauroa’s address several times before the attack, including a five- minute visit from 4.53 pm to 4.58 pm. Mr Tauroa was then president of the Mataura Mongrel Mob. Mr Tauroa’s van and the BMW travelled in convoy through Invercargill to the scene of the attack.
[15] You were stationary at the scene of the attack for two minutes from 5.17 pm, corresponding to the time of the incident. After the attack, you drove to the Bluff Road intersection and then took a side road to the Estuary Walkway carpark where you were stationary for a short time. You then drove to Mr Tauroa’s house at 5.32 pm.
[16] The following day, the Police searched the estuary area where you had briefly parked. The Police found a knife with a red taped handle within 10 metres of where you had parked, as well as a red t-shirt commonly worn by Mongrel Mob members and some documents.
[17] On 18 February 2018 at approximately 2.10 pm, Police were conducting enquiries about the attack at an address believed to be occupied by Mangu Kaha members. You were found in the passenger seat of a car parked in the driveway of the address. The Police then saw another Mongrel Mob associate, Mr Ashbrook, return to the driver’s seat. Mr Ashbrook told Police you were waiting for an associate to return to the address.
[18] The Police left, but returned when informed that you and Mr Ashbrook had driven past another known Mangu Kahu member’s address. As they returned to your parked vehicle, they observed and briefly spoke to Mr Ashbrook, he was away from the car, before he ran off.
[19] The Police returned to you in the car in the driveway. The Police observed a baseball bat and other weapons within the car, a firearm at your feet in the car. You were arrested and searched. You were wearing your Mongrel Mob patch under your jacket. A 30-30 live round was found in your jacket pocket. A loaded and actioned
.22 calibre pump action rifle was found at your feet with a round in the chamber and a further six rounds in the pump action housing. Also found in the car was a softball bat, golf club and other items, capable of being used as weapons. You were aggressive and verbally abusive throughout your arrest and refused to provide any explanation.
[20] The summary of facts recorded that you and Mr Ashbrook were actively attempting to dissuade and/or harm witnesses with regard to the original stabbing.
[21] The charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is the lead charge. Now, that relates to the Mongrel Mob attack on the young man. You and Mr Tauroa were jointly charged. He also pleaded guilty to that charge. In sentencing Mr Tauroa, I agreed with the Crown submissions that the aggravating features present were pre-meditation, use of weapons, extreme violence, multiple attackers, gang warfare and serious injury.1 These aggravating features meant the offending fell into band 3 of Taueki which provides for a starting point of between nine and 14 years’ imprisonment.2 In sentencing Mr Tauroa, I referred to the way a member of the Mongrel Mob was sentenced for inter-gang violence in the case of Simeon v R and the Court of Appeal’s approval of the way the District Court Judge approached sentencing on the basis of collective responsibility.3
[22] Here, the Crown submits the starting point for your offending should be the same as for Mr Tauroa, 10 years’ imprisonment.
1 R v Tauroa [2020] NZHC 376 at [18].
2 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).
3 Simeon v R [2010] NZCA 559.
[23] For you, Ms Vidal, as you have heard, submits a starting point less than that should apply. In her written submissions, she said the starting point for you should be 8 years’ imprisonment and that would be appropriate on the basis you did not use physical violence against the victim and were not responsible for organising what occurred. She thus argues you should not be sentenced on the same basis as Mr Tauroa.
[24]I reject that submission.
[25] In Simeon, the Court of Appeal approved the District Court Judge’s approach when he said:4
When a group of people involve themselves collectively in violence against somebody else, they must all take responsibility for the actions of the group. It may be that the particular injuries inflicted with the bottle or the hockey stick might have been blows struck by somebody else. What was perfectly clear from the evidence was that both of you were identified as people who were involved from the beginning and were there until the end.
[26] The summary of facts indicates that you had a role in transporting Mongrel Mob members to the scene of the attack, had contact with Mr Tauroa at key times both before and after the attack, and I infer that you assisted in the attempted disposal of a firearm involved in the attack. Ms Vidal suggests that it can only be speculative as to whether you were the person actually involved in attempting to get rid of that item and to conceal it but, even if you were involved either in just taking people, someone else, to that place where the firearm was found or in collecting them afterwards, what your movements show is that, at that stage, after the young man had been attacked, you were continuing to assist your Mongrel Mob brothers with all that had happened.
[27] In sentencing Mr Tauroa, I referred to cases where secondary parties have been given the same starting point as the principal offenders. I consider that you participated and assisted in this attack in the way you allowed your car to be used, drove it to the scene, assisted afterwards. You had a key role in facilitating, promoting and encouraging what was a brutal attack, which could well have resulted in a young man’s death. The attack was brief, as was the time you and your vehicle were at the
4 At [34].
scene, but that was because of the way it had been organised and coordinated. It was targeted and intense. The victim was vulnerable in that he was taken by surprise. He was blocked in by a vehicle and could not escape.
[28] So, with you, as I did with Mr Tauroa, I adopt a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.
[29] There then has to be an uplift for your other offending two days later. Two days after the gang attack, when you and your Mongrel Mob associate, Mr Ashbrook, parked in the driveway of a known Mangu Kaha address with various weapons, you were in possession of a loaded firearm, a sawn-off rifle, pump action.
[30] Ms Vidal suggested the uplift should be only six months to ensure the totality principle is not breached. She also suggested your role in the offending was of support as opposed to an active participant. The Crown suggested an uplift of 12 months having regard to the starting point offending that had been adopted in the District Court, but also because they considered that, with that offending, the Court had to be concerned about totality.
[31] I do not accept the submissions of either the Crown or the defence in relation to this. In going to the Mangu Kaha address, your actions were threatening. At a time of day when members of the public, not associated with gangs, were likely to have been nearby, in going to that address with the weapons, there was potential for further serious violence. In pleading guilty to the charges relating to this, you accepted you were in control of the weapons that were in the vehicle, items that could certainly be used as weapons. At your feet was the rifle, loaded and actioned, with a round in the chamber and a further six rounds in the pump action housing.
[32] As you heard, the Crown has suggested an uplift for this offending of 12 months. Your counsel suggests six months.
[33] A co-offender on these charges, Mr Ashbrook, was sentenced in the District Court on the same charges on 8 May 2018 after accepting a sentence indication which had been given on 9 April 2018. A Police prosecutor appeared for the prosecution.
The Judge adopted a starting point for the three offences of 12 months’ imprisonment. He uplifted that by one month on account of Mr Ashbrook’s offending to 13 months then allowed two months discount for matters raised in a psychological report, 20 per cent for a guilty plea, arriving at an end sentence of eight months’ imprisonment. The Judge noted that Mr Ashbrook was away from the car at the time the Police returned to it and found you there with the loaded rifle and other weapons. He referred to Mr Ashbrook presenting to the Police Station on 21 February 2018, admitting the acts and admitted to touching the firearm briefly. He said:
Whether or not you [Mr Ashbrook] were heavily involved or as heavily involved as the co-offender is probably of little real significance. Lawson may have held the gun and done the threatening but you [Mr Ashbrook] were the driver of the vehicle who made it all possible, neither of you can hide behind the other.
[34] I don’t think, in the summary of facts before me, there was mention of someone actually holding the firearm but clearly the firearm was in the vehicle and you had possession of it, with the potential for it to be presented at someone, indeed fired at someone.
[35] The Court should endeavour to avoid too great a disparity between sentences for different offenders for the same offending. But that does not justify me now arriving at a sentence which is based on an earlier sentence for someone else which was too low having regard to sentences that have been imposed by the courts in other cases for similar offending. In any event, you were the person who had the loaded sawn-off, pump action firearm at your feet. You were the person in the prime position to actually use that weapons.
[36] I have had regard to other cases. They indicate a starting point sentence of two and a half years could well have been appropriate.
[37] In Herewini v Police, a retired member of the Mongrel Mob was stopped by a Police patrol car. There was a loaded sawn-off shotgun under the front passenger seat, two large hunting knives in the centre console, in the back seat was a cross bow and in a bag there was a dagger and a glass pipe.5 The Judge was particularly concerned
5 Herewini v Police [2014] NZHC 2396
that the gun was loaded and the vehicle was stopped in a residential area. Further, the offending took place in the context of heightened gang tensions following the recent murder of a Mongrel Mob member. A starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment was adopted given the context of the charge and that the shotgun was loaded.
[38] The Judge referred to a number of High Court decisions which shared a starting point of between two and two and a half years for unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.6
[39] In Dewes v Police, a loaded shot-gun was found cut down at the stock end under the passenger seat of a car. It was ready to be fired, there were five other shells in the breech and a bag containing 19 shells. The fact the weapon had been taken out into the car made it more serious than when a weapon is found hidden in a building.7 Other people in the vehicle were armed with a stick and a cross-bow. The Judge found these circumstances created a great risk to the public. Although no gang links were evident, the Judge still adopted a starting point of two and a half years.8
[40]I adopt an uplift for this further offending of two years’ imprisonment.
[41] I do not consider there has to be any adjustment for totality or that concurrent sentences should be imposed for these offences. And I acknowledge, in doing that, I am departing from the submission that was made by Ms McKenzie for the Crown. Your offending on 18 February 2018 was separate to the Mongrel Mob attack that occurred on 16 February 2018. It was not the inevitable consequence of what happened earlier. You involved yourself in seriously intimidating and potentially dangerous conduct, no doubt to intimidate those associated with Mangu Kaha from retaliating against the Mongrel Mob and from giving evidence. With the acceptance of the summary of facts, you have admitted that the purpose of being at the address
6 Torea v R [2011] NZCA 96; Martel v Police HC Hamilton CIV-2010-419-69, 4 October 2010; Dewes v Police HC Christchurch A60/03, 12 June 2003; R v Richardson CA450/02, 25 March 2003.
7 Police v Gunbie [2018] NZDC 23669, upheld in Gunbie v Police [2019] NZHC 250 at [26], citing
Dewes v Police, above n 6.
Dewes v Police, above n 6.
and possessing the weapons was to dissuade witnesses from giving evidence or to harm them with regard to the original stabbing.
[42] So, taking all the offending into account, the adjusted starting point for these offences is 12 years’ imprisonment.
[43] In terms of the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in Moses, at this point, there needs to be a discount or credit for your guilty plea.9 The prosecution case against you on all charges was strong. The GPS monitoring tracked your involvement in movements leading up to the attack, put you at the scene and at the place where the firearm and backpack connected with the attack were later found. The later offending resulted from you being found by the Police in the vehicle at the Mangu Kaha address.
[44] With your plea of guilty, you nevertheless accepted responsibility for your involvement. Ms Vidal says there is remorse with that but I note that the pre-sentence report indicates that, to the probation officer, you simply denied you were involved. You were not capable there of saying that you were sorry for what had happened. But, you did what you could to reduce the costs to the State of a trial. I allow for the same credit as Mr Tauroa received, 20 per cent on a starting point of 12 years.
[45] Alongside the credit for a guilty plea, I need to bring into account any aggravating or mitigating features relating to you personally. In Moses, the Court of Appeal said this should be done by way of a percentage discount.
[46] I note there was no uplift on account of Mr Tauroa’s previous offending when he was sentenced. Although he had a number of previous convictions, his offending history was not like yours. He had received a sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment in 2009 for committing burglary with a weapon. His only other conviction for violence was common assault for which he received a $400 fine. The Crown did not seek an uplift because of his previous convictions.
[47] Your counsel suggested there should be no uplift because of your prior criminal history. She suggested this was not a case of you using violence again in a way that you had been punished for in the past. She suggested your present offending was a
9 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.
case of exercising, the term she used, “extremely poor decision-making”, as a consequence of which you would be receiving a significant prison sentence. She argued that imposing an uplift for past offending would be to re-punish you for prior offending.
[48] I reject those submissions. This was not just a case of poor decision-making. Ms Vidal explained that, because of your gang associations, not actually with the Mataura Mongrel Mob but still with the Mongrel Mob, on leaving prison, you re- joined really the only people available to you for support, they were Mongrel Mob. As she put it, you chose to be with your brothers. But, that is not what you are being sentenced for. You are being sentenced because, with your offending and all your offending, you have shown yourself to be willing to promote serious violence and to act in a gravely intimidating way against another gang where there was the potential for further violence. Any uplift to be imposed will not be to punish you for what you have done previously but for the purposes of denunciation, deterrence and protection of others from harm.
[49]The Crown refers to your 11 previous violence-related convictions, including:
(a) wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm with a weapon, for which you were sentenced on 1 April 2010;
(b) other, aggravated robbery, sentenced for that offence on the same date;
(c) disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence, for which you were sentenced on 8 March 2010;
(d) two cases of threatening to kill or to do grievous bodily harm, for which you were sentenced on 8 March 2010;
(e) two charges of assaulting Police.
[50] You are now aged 29. You have spent 10 years of your life in prison since you were 17. You were on parole and subject to release conditions following your last prison sentence at the time you involved yourself in this offending. In these circumstances, there needs to be an uplift to deter you and others from this sort of offending, by way of denunciation, but the uplift needs to avoid you being sentenced
against for earlier offending. Mr Lawson, the uplift and the sentence I have to impose has to be at a level which encourages you to think about what life might offer away from the gang environment in the future so that you can make a break from what now seems to be an entrenched pattern of violent offending.
[51] In Vainu v R, the Court of Appeal considered an uplift of 18 months on a starting point sentence of seven years was available to the Judge because of the offender’s previous serious violent offending, the fact he assisted in an armed robbery of Armaguard shortly after a release from prison, was at risk of further serious offending and was not willing to address the causes of his offending.10 You have 11 related serious violence convictions, escalating in violence (seriousness). I accept an uplift of 12 months is warranted, reflecting both your previous convictions and that this offending occurred when you were still subject to release conditions. An uplift of 12 months equates to a little over eight per cent of a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment.
[52] Your counsel has sought a 20 per cent reduction for mitigating matters relating to you personally. I note that Mr Tauroa benefited from a 15 per cent discount in my sentencing remarks. In sentencing him, I referred to the information from a s 27 cultural report and pre-sentence report as to his family’s involvement with the Mongrel Mob over several generations. I said that he had been greatly affected by the violent and abusive environment in which he was raised. His loyalty to the Mongrel Mob and associated offending was logically linked to his exposure to gangs and violence from a young age. I also referred to the way that gang environment explained his offending when other information indicated he was capable of making a real positive contribution to the community. There was information referred to in my sentencing remarks which indicated there was real potential for him to move away from his gang association so he would be able to return to employment where he was valued, and to a family where his role as a parent was valued. In his particular circumstances, I indicated that a credit of 15 per cent was merciful.
10 Vainu v R [2014] NZCA 375.
[53] I do not have a s 27 cultural report for you. Nevertheless, the pre-sentence report refers to your being an active member of the Mongrel Mob. Ms Vidal has quite properly told me of just how important that association with the mob is for you and how it was because of your decision to join again your brother members of the mob that you got involved in this offending. There is no mention of you having pro-social associations outside the gang, as there were with Mr Tauroa. You told the report writer that you and your brother were removed from your parents and placed in state care, due to suffering “beatings” by your father. You became actively involved in the Mongrel Mob saying “like father, like son”. This was consistent with your first conviction being at 17 years and 10 months. You were placed in state care and said you were in more than 20 foster homes. You ran away from many of them, only to be located by Police and returned or placed in a new home. You considered you suffered from not being placed with Māori families and said you had lost whanau (Aiga connections). It seems you now have almost no one, apart perhaps from a brother in Nelson, outside the Mongrel Mob to support you living away from prison. I say that without being sure that your brother is actually not in the Mongrel Mob.
[54] The pre-sentence report said your way of thinking and behaving is consistent with a person who has been exposed to the negative implications of consistent exposure to the attitudes, beliefs and values of an anti-social group such as the Mongrel Mob.
[55] Your counsel arranged for a psychological report to be provided by Mr Prince to assist with sentencing. The information you gave him as to your family background was the same as that provided to the probation officer.
[56] Mr Prince noted the number (6) and severity of your violence convictions culminating in a wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm (with a weapon) and aggravated robbery convictions at the age of 19, for which you were sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. You did not want to discuss any of the details of the offending with Mr Prince. Mr Prince said that, with that offending, you had punched, kicked and stomped on a victim, resulting in the victim losing an eye, having a disfigured face and a deformed hand. You had not expressed remorse and appeared to display a callous disregard for the victim.
[57] In the four years you were in prison for that conviction, you had been charged with 22 misconducts for threatening/abusing staff, threatening and assaulting inmates and rule-breaking, but you were not convicted on all of those charges. It had been recommended that you attend the high risk personality programme but you declined to be accepted for this. Records showed you had attended a special treatment unit rehabilitation programme for a time in 2015 but you were evicted after a month due to “poor participation and behavioural problems”. The report indicates that you were given the opportunity to participate in the short motivational programme (SMP) and in 2017 you were assessed to determine your motivation to engage in individual treatment. The information from Mr Prince indicates that your willingness to engage and benefit from those programmes was limited. By 2017, your misconduct in prison and attitudes had led to you being deemed to be “a very high risk of general and violent reoffending and of being imprisoned”.
[58] Mr Prince said there were indications that you had become mentally unwell, experiencing paranoid delusions after you were on remand for the current offending. You were prescribed anti-psychotic medication with positive effect, including an improvement in your conduct within the prison. Corrections staff had reported a significant positive change while you were on medication but told Mr Prince there remained a risk of violence but this was not associated with you being mentally unwell.
[59] You refused to discuss personal, family and background information in any detail with Mr Prince and declined ongoing psychiatric follow up. You have informed clinicians that you no longer require mental health input and, while on remand in prison, were discharged from Specialist Mental Health Services care and referred back to Primary Health Services.
[60] Mr Prince’s ability to provide insights into why you had offended as you did was limited by your unwillingness to provide much personal information to him.
[61] Mr Prince said you were adamant that you did not want to be involved in an offence-specific group treatment programme but you were prepared to do individual treatment sessions as required. Mr Prince noted that it remained to be seen whether
this would actually happen. He said, without successfully completing offence-specific treatment, you will remain at risk of further violent offending.
[62] Ms Vidal addressed me carefully and responsibly to suggest that I should not deal with you on the basis that you are essentially unwilling to involve in programmes that might turn you away from offending. She said it is not a case of someone displaying a belligerent unwillingness. She suggested that you recognise that you need some individual therapy to get you to the point where you will be able to participate in some rehabilitation programmes which will provide hopes for a change in the future. She suggested that your taking medication was a step you had taken for yourself which has had the effect of reducing the extent to which you were showing that you were capable of violence and prone to it in prison.
[63] Well, I recognise what she was saying but, within prison, Corrections have spoken to you about possibly and wanting you to be involved in different programmes that would assist you. Some of what was proposed was individual treatment. But, the information before me indicates that you were not motivated to engage fully in those programmes and, as a result, they have not been able to do much for you in terms of changing the way you think.
[64] I accept that you have had some involvement with the positive lifestyle programme, but the facilitator has said that, even with that programme, you were unable to complete the programme. The facilitator has said that, if at any time in the future you do wish to complete the programme on a one-to-one basis, then the facilitator would be willing to assist you with this. But, the information I have before me at this stage is that, for whatever reason, you are not doing what you need to do to address the causes of your offending, causes which put you at risk of spending year after year in prison, causes which put other people at risk of serious harm from the sort of violence you have inflicted in the past and which you were party to with the attack that occurred on the young man in this instance.
[65] Corrections, in the pre-sentence report said it was concerning that a nine year prison sentence had little deterrence to you from going on to be involved in similar offending, offending with an incident which was similar to that for which you were
sentenced in 2000. And, that you involved yourself in this further activity even when you were subject to parole and GPS monitoring.
[66] The Crown noted your background of violence where you were beaten as a child and you were subjected to gang culture from an early age. The Crown submitted you will be entitled to a discount for personal mitigating factors but submitted it should be no more than 10 per cent. Ms Vidal, in her written submissions, relied on her own assessment and experience to suggest that you were suffering from an ongoing level of abnormal paranoia before this offending which you had masked. She suggested this diminished your culpability for your offending. There is not however a sufficient evidential basis for a discount on this basis but she asks for a discount of 20 per cent because of the way she says you have had no alternative but to remain involved with the gang.
[67] I accept that your family background led to your involvement with the Mongrel Mob and the gang involvement has ultimately led to this offending. Nevertheless, it is apparent from Mr Prince’s report that, during a lengthy prison sentence, you have not engaged in programmes or individual treatment which would help you to make a break from your past and the attitudes and associations that contribute so significantly to your violent offending. You did not take advantage of those opportunities. Mr Prince obviously has doubts as to whether you would fully engage in individual treatment even now.
[68] Your offending in this instance shows a deep commitment to the Mongrel Mob and a willingness to involve yourself in serious violence for the Mongrel Mob. You have made choices as to where your priorities will lie, for which you must take personal responsibility.
[69] If you choose not to take advantage of the programmes which are available to you while in prison that would hopefully bring about a change, you will have to accept the full consequences of future criminal offending because that offending will have been caused by the choices you have made at this stage in your life, rather than your upbringing as a child.
[70] It can already be said that this offending, in a similar way, was the result of choices you made during the time you have been subjected to successive prison sentences. I also have a concern that, within the gang environment, because of your allegiance to the gang as a person who would be known to have a propensity for violence, there is the potential for you to be manipulated and used by others who, themselves, do not have to answer for what they have done. I am allowing a discount of eight per cent against the starting point sentence of 12 years. That will effectively cancel out the eight per cent uplift on account of your history and offending while subject to release conditions.
[71] The end result is that you benefit from a 20 per cent discount against the starting point sentence of 12 years because of your guilty plea. This results in an end sentence for you of a little over nine and half years’ imprisonment. That is more than the sentence imposed on Mr Tauroa but the difference can be explained because of your involvement in the additional serious offending two days after the attack, and the way, with you, there is a greater risk of your causing serious harm in the future and, sadly, because of your history of serious violent criminal offending.
[72] Your guilty pleas have reduced the sentence you would otherwise have received by around two and half years. You have also received the benefit of a reduction in your sentence of around one year to recognise your unfortunate start in life. You should be aware that, because you must be fully responsible for the choices you make in the future, if, while you are in prison or on your release from prison, you commit serious violence offences again, you will not receive the same discount I have given you now on account of your family background leading, as it did, to your involvement with the Mongrel Mob and thus this latest offending.
[73] The Crown has submitted that a minimum period of imprisonment is needed for the purposes set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.11 I have already referred to your history of serious violent offending. The pre-sentence report writer assessed your risk of reoffending to be moderate to high but the risk is as to a high level of harm if it does occur and such violence is repeated. Your involvement in the current offending soon
11 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86(2).
after your release from prison and your involvement in the gang intimidation two days after this young man was attacked all demonstrate a lack of remorse for your actions and a willingness to become involved in serious violence within the gang environment.
[74] The Crown suggests you should be subjected to a minimum period of imprisonment of two thirds of the end sentence. Your counsel suggests it should be for no more than 50 per cent. I consider the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment is five years.
[75] Mr Tauroa was sentenced to a minimum period of imprisonment of approximately 50 per cent of the sentence otherwise arrived at but his offending history was significantly less serious than yours. The risk of his reoffending in the future and of the level of violence that could result from such offending was also significantly less than for you.
[76] Mr Lawson, please stand. On the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of eight years. On the charge of being in an enclosed yard, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month. On the charge of possession of an offensive weapon, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine months. On the charge of unlawfully carrying a firearm, you are sentenced to imprisonment for one and a half years. The sentence on the firearm charge is cumulative on the sentence of eight years on the wounding with intent charges. Those sentences are concurrent with the sentences on the other two charges. So, the effective end sentence is nine and a half years’ imprisonment.
[77] On the sentence of eight years for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, you are to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.
[78]That is the sentence which the Court imposes. You can stand down.
Solicitors:
Preston Russell Law, Invercargill Southern Law, Invercargill.
0
6
0