R v Mackle - [2014] NZHC 2639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-13119 [2014] NZHC 2639

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH MACKLE

Hearing: 28 October 2014

Appearances:

M J Hammer and M R Walker for Crown
S Bonnar QC for Defendant

Sentence:

28 October 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v MACKLE [2014] NZHC 2639 [28 October 2014]

[1] Mr Mackle, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of riotous damage under s 90 of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment.

Background

[2] The charge to which you pleaded guilty arises out of a riot that occurred at the Springhill Corrections Facility on the weekend of 1 June 2013. This caused significant damage to the facility and, in fact, has required about $5,000,000 to repair.

[3] The riot occurred in Unit 16B, which was a medium security unit containing two pods each of which held 45 prisoners. You were being held in one of those pods.

[4] The riot began when prisoners were released from their pods for morning exercise. At that point corrections officers went into your cell and discovered a home brew concoction. They also noticed that some of the prisoners, including you, appeared to be intoxicated. In a short period of time this led to several fights breaking out, and at that point some of your co-offenders assaulted corrections officers as the officers tried to retreat to the staff base. You were not involved in these particular assaults.

[5] From that point on riotous damage occurred over a period lasting several hours. Those involved, including you, fashioned weapons by breaking furniture or material removed from locked store rooms. These were then used to inflict damage on both the building and other property within the pods.

[6] The nature of the activities in which you and other prisoners were involved is significant. It included breaking doors and windows, smashing items of furniture and using items such as broken furniture to fuel fires that other prisoners began. The fact that the Crown ultimately withdrew a charge of arson that was originally laid against you indicates that it accepts you were not involved in the lighting of the fires.

[7] Matters became more serious when rioters forced their way through a glass door to the staff base using a volleyball pole. This led to further violence both to property and to a corrections officer. Again, however, you were not involved in this particular aspect of the riot.

[8] Your involvement relates to the home brew that was found in your cell and the fact that you kicked, punched and struck the staff base doors and windows with objects. You used pieces of wood to hit the staff base windows and you threw several tables against the staff base windows, causing the tables to be damaged. You also assisted to destroy other items such as toasters, sandwich presses, tables and chairs by throwing them against the staff base doors and windows. 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 Mackle

Details

AGLC: R v Mackle [2014] NZHC 2639
Case: [2014] NZHC 2639
Decision Date: 28 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Mackle was heard and sentenced on 28 October 2014. The defendant, Joseph Mackle, pleaded guilty to one charge of riotous damage under s 90 of the Crimes Act 1961, which occurred during a riot at the Springhill Corrections Facility on 1 June 2013. The riot caused approximately $5,000,000 in damages. The defendant was one of the prisoners involved in the riot, participating in the damage to the facility and contributing to the fires that were started. The court needed to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the severity of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the need for consistency with sentences imposed on co-defendants. The court also needed to consider mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea and participation in rehabilitative activities.

The court began by establishing a starting point of three years four months imprisonment for the defendant, taking into account his lesser involvement in the riot compared to other prisoners. The court rejected the Crown's submission to increase the starting point due to the defendant's lengthy criminal history, deciding instead to adopt a generous approach. The court then applied various mitigating factors, including a discount for the defendant's guilty plea, his participation in counselling sessions, and his expression of remorse. The court determined that an end sentence of two years two months imprisonment was appropriate, to be served cumulatively with the existing sentences the defendant was already serving.

The court emphasised the importance of maintaining prison discipline and ensuring that the cumulative sentence for the defendant was not disproportionate to the overall gravity of his offending. The court considered the totality principles and decided not to make any adjustments to the sentence. The final sentence imposed on the defendant was two years two months imprisonment for the charge of riotous damage, to be served cumulatively with his existing sentences.

Orders