Legal Research
Cases
R v Lote-Telea

R v Lote-Telea

Case [2023] NZHC 1959 25 July 2023

Victim Impact Statement

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF SENTENCE INDICATION

GIVEN TO CO-DEFENDANT MATANGIRAU CUFF IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL CO-DEFENDANT CUFF HAS BEEN SENTENCED. REFER [42] AND

FOOTNOTE 13. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-072-000048

[2023] NZHC 1959

THE KING

v

SIAUMAU LOTE-TELEA

Hearing: 25 July 2023

Appearances:

J Hamilton for the Crown

K Burroughs and L Wilkins for Mr Lote-Telea

Sentencing:

25 July 2023

(REDACTED) REISSUED SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Counsel:
K Burroughs, Barrister, Hamilton L Wilkins, Barrister, Hamilton

R v LOTE-TELEA [2023] NZHC 1959 [25 July 2023]

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

[2] During the trial seven defendants pleaded guilty to amalgamated charges and counsel for a further defendant sought, and was granted leave, to withdraw. That left three of you who defended the charges through to verdict.

[3] You were found guilty of 15 out of 21 charges for offending that spanned a period from 29 December 2020 to 2 January 2021 as follows:

(a)arson;1

(b)arson (with a danger to life) (x 3);2

(c)burglary (x 7);3

(d)assault with a weapon (x 2);4

(e)riotous damage;5 and

(f)rioting.6

Factual background

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

[5] On the morning of 29 December 2020 you were in a group of 21 prisoners in one of the exercise yards, yard 116. An incident occurred in that yard when one of the prisoners refused to return a disposable razor (or razors) to a Corrections officer.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 267(2) and 66. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 267(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 231(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 202C(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 90. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
6      Section 87. Maximum penalty: 2 years’ imprisonment.

Several other prisoners offered that prisoner their support. You were not one of those prisoners. When the Corrections officer told those in the yard that they would all be returned to their cells early if the razors were not surrendered, the Corrections officer was told by some that they were not going anywhere and were ready for a fight. Eventually one razor was handed in, the situation was defused, and tensions settled. You and the other prisoners in the yard were then permitted to remain there for the usual period.

[6] The Crown case was that later in the morning a group of nine of the 21 prisoners set in train the events that led to the riot, which proceeded over a period of five…

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 Lote-Telea

Details

AGLC: R v Lote-Telea [2023] NZHC 1959
Case: [2023] NZHC 1959
Decision Date: 25 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lote-Telea involved the sentencing of Siaumau Lote-Telea, who was found guilty of multiple charges arising from a riot at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Lote-Telea was found guilty of 15 out of 21 charges, including arson, burglary, assault with a weapon, riotous damage, and rioting. The court identified several aggravating features of the offending, including the use of actual and threatened violence, the extent of loss and damage, the unprecedented scale of the offending, the risk of injury, and the significant victim impact. The Crown submitted that the appropriate global starting point for the sentence would be 13 years' imprisonment, while the defendant's counsel argued for a lower starting point due to parity considerations with co-defendants who had already been sentenced.

The court accepted the aggravating features identified by the Crown but found that the defendant's culpability was slightly less than that of some co-defendants, particularly as he was not found guilty of the initial charges related to events in the exercise yard. The court adopted a starting point of 11 years and nine months' imprisonment, with an uplift for the other charges to account for the defendant's convictions on charges not faced by co-defendants who pleaded guilty. The court did not impose an uplift for the defendant's previous convictions, nor did it impose a minimum term of imprisonment. After applying a 10% discount for the defendant's personal circumstances, the court sentenced Lote-Telea to 10 years and six months' imprisonment on the lead charges of arson with a danger to life, with concurrent sentences on the remaining charges.

The final orders of the court were that Lote-Telea be sentenced to 10 years and six months' imprisonment on each of the three charges of arson with a danger to life, with concurrent sentences on the remaining charges, to be served concurrently. The court also issued an order prohibiting the publication of the sentence indication given to co-defendant Matangirau Cuff in the news media or on the internet until Cuff has been sentenced, with publication in law reports or law digests permitted.

Orders