R v Marou
[2018] NZHC 2594
•4 October 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2017-087-131
[2018] NZHC 2594
THE QUEEN v
PAIRAMA THUNDER MAROU
Hearing: 4 October 2018
(Heard at TAURANGA)
Appearances:
O M Salt for Crown
R Webby for Defendant
Judgment:
4 October 2018
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J
R v MAROU [2018] NZHC 2594 [4 October 2018]
[1] Mr Marou, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty following a sentence indication to a charge of rioting.1 That charge carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment.
[2] The facts of your offending are set out in the sentence indication, and this will be annexed to and form part of my sentencing remarks. For that reason I do not traverse the facts of your offending again. In short, I considered it warranted a starting point of 15 months imprisonment. I then gave you allowances of three months and four months respectively to reflect your guilty plea and the fact that you had been subject to restrictive EM bail conditions for a lengthy period. This resulted in an end sentence of eight months imprisonment. The issue I now need to determine is whether you should be sentenced to home detention or community detention rather than imprisonment.
[3] You have held down full time and demanding employment throughout the period you have been on bail. You have also been able to comply with the terms of your electronic bail. For that reason I am satisfied that it is appropriate that you serve an electronically monitored sentence rather than a sentence of imprisonment. The Court should obviously encourage you to continue with your employment.
[4] In the present case your employers have asked that a sentence of community detention be imposed because the strictures of EM bail have proved difficult to manage in the past. I consider that is an appropriate request given the fact that you are required to work lengthy hours in your employment on dairy farms. I am therefore satisfied a sentence of community detention is appropriate rather than home detention.
[5] On the charge to which you have pleaded guilty you are sentenced to six months community detention at your home address of 5 Armstrong Avenue, Whakatane. You will be required to observe a curfew at that address each evening between the hours of 8 pm and 4.30 am. This will permit you to continue your employment.
1 R v Marou [2018] NZHC 1972.
[6] I have considered whether I should also impose a sentence of community work. Having regard to the demanding nature of your employment, I consider that would be inappropriate in the present case. I therefore impose no sentence of community work.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Webby & Associates, Tauranga
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS
PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE
THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2017-087-131 [2018] NZHC 1972
THE QUEEN
v
PAIRAMA THUNDER MAROU
Hearing: 30 July 2018
Appearances: O M Salt for Crown
R Webby for Mr Marou
Date: 30 July 2018
SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J
[1] Mr Marou faces a charge of rioting. The facts are as set out in a sentence indication I delivered earlier this morning in relation to two of his co-defendants, Mr Te Riini and Mr Kingi.2 Mr Marou’s part in the incident giving rise to the charges is indistinguishable from that of Mr Kingi and Mr Te Riini. For that reason I select a starting point of 15 months imprisonment.
[2] Ms Webby advises me that her client was on 24 hour EM bail from February to May 2017. Between May and December 2017, he was permitted to leave his home address each day to attend work, but was subject to both an evening curfew and full weekend curfew. In December 2017, his bail was varied so as to permit him to be out and about during the day, but subject to a curfew between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am each night.
[3] The most significant of the restrictions placed on Mr Marou were the four months he spent subject to a 24 hour curfew. He was subject to reasonably restrictive conditions between May and December 2017 because he was subject to a full curfew over the weekends as well as overnight curfew. The bail conditions between 2017 and July 2018 were more relaxed because they have permitted Mr Marou to be away from his home address every day during daylight hours.
[4] The Court has a discretion to apply a discount in relation to restrictive bail conditions. Any discount does not, however, equate to the length of time spent subject to such conditions. The Court must select a discount reflecting the overall restrictive nature of the time spent subject to bail conditions. In the present case I would be prepared to allow four months to reflect Mr Marou’s restrictive bail conditions. This produces a sentence of 11 months prior to taking into account guilty pleas.
[5] The Crown submits that a discount of 15 per cent is appropriate given the fact that Mr Marou’s trial is due to start on 20 August 2018. As in the case of the other defendants, I take the view that there is very real value to both the community and the Crown in having these defendants removed from the trial because they will effectively present as a distraction to the more serious charges faced by other defendants. For that reason I would apply a discount of three months to reflect guilty pleas. This would
2 R v Kingi and Te Riini [2018] NZHC 1901.
produce an end sentence of eight months imprisonment. Whether or not that could be converted to a sentence of home detention would obviously depend on any address Mr Marou could offer. I would therefore leave the issue of home detention to be canvassed once the pre-sentence report is available.
[6] Ms Webby will file and serve a memorandum no later than 3 pm on Thursday 2 August 2018 advising whether Mr Marou accepts the indication I have given. If he does, he will need to be present in the High Court at Rotorua on Friday 3 August 2018 at 9 am to be arraigned.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Webby & Associates, Tauranga
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS
PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE
THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2017-087-131 [2018] NZHC 1901
THE QUEEN
v
TYSON KINGI LIONEL TE RIINI
Hearing: 30 July 2018 Appearances: R W Jenson for Crown
W T Nabney for Mr Kingi G McArthur for Mr Te Riini
Date: 30 July 2018
SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J
[1] Mr Te Riini and Mr Kingi are charged with rioting. Their trial is due to commence on 20 August 2018. Both defendants have now sought a sentence indication. This is an indication of the sentence that would be imposed in the event that the defendants entered guilty pleas to the charges within a very short time of the indication being given.
The charges
[2] Each defendant was charged after he became involved at the tail-end of a series of events that occurred in and around the Whakatane area on 27 January 2017. On that date, a large number of cars filed with members of the Mongrel Mob and their supporters arrived in Whakatane as part of a funeral procession. During the course of the day members and associates of the rival Black Power group, with whom both defendants are associated, decided they would confront the funeral procession. Several incidents occurred before the one in which Mr Te Riini and Mr Kingi became involved. The most serious of these occurred in Valley Road, Whakatane. This involved a member of the Black Power gang firing two shots towards a line of police officers and a large group of members of the Mongrel Mob. Fortunately, no one was injured as a result of that incident.
[3] Shortly after that incident, the funeral procession moved on. Mr Te Riini and Mr Kingi were part of a group associated with the Black Power gang who went to an alleyway running from Valley Road through to Douglas Street. About ten to 15 Black Power gang members and associates again confronted the funeral procession armed with sticks, bats and missiles. This disrupted the procession and brought it to a halt.
[4] The police became involved immediately and pursued the Black Power members down the alleyway. Police staff who came into the area saw the Black Power members and associates running out of the alleyway carrying sticks and bats. Once they saw the police approaching they discarded their weapons. Both defendants were seen leaving the alleyway and were arrested at that point.
Starting point
[5] The starting point for this offending is informed by that selected in relation to Mr O’Toole, another person who was only involved in the Douglas Street incident.3 In that case I selected a starting point of 15 months imprisonment. I acknowledged that the involvement of the offender had occurred late in the day, and after the most serious of the earlier incidents. On the other hand, the defendants participated in a riot knowing that the other incidents had occurred. The starting point needed to reflect their decision to become involved having that knowledge.
[6] I see no reason to distinguish between the starting point selected in relation to Mr O’Toole and that to be selected in the present case. I therefore select a starting point of 15 months imprisonment for both defendants.
Aggravating factors
[7] The Crown suggests that a modest uplift can be applied to reflect previous convictions. Both defendants have previous convictions, but I consider the sentences imposed in relation to these reflect that they must have been at the “nuisance” end of the scale. For that reason I would not apply an uplift to reflect previous convictions.
Mitigating factors
Mr Kingi
[8] Mr Kingi seeks a discount for guilty pleas and the fact that he was subject to EM bail restrictions for approximately eight months. I would apply a discount of three months to reflect the EM bail restrictions. This reduces the sentence to one of 12 months imprisonment.
[9] The Crown suggests a discount of 15 per cent to reflect guilty pleas. Ordinarily, that submission would have force because the pleas would come late in the day. In the present case, however, there is very real value to both the Crown and the community in having these relatively minor charges removed from the trial that is due
3 R v O’Toole [2018] NZHC 1494.
to commence on 20 August 2018. For that reason I would apply a discount of three months, being 20 per cent, but rounded up to reflect a guilty plea by Mr Kingi.
Mr Te Riini
[10] I apply the same discount in relation to Mr Te Riini. This reduces the sentence in his case to one of 12 months imprisonment.
[11] Mr McArthur is anxious to ensure a sentence of home detention is available in relation to Mr Te Riini. A sentence of 12 months duration means the prospect of home detention is available. Whether or not it is an appropriate sentence in this case would depend on several factors. These include the appropriateness of any address Mr Te Riini might put forward in support of a submission that he be sentenced to home detention. I would therefore leave that issue to be determined at sentencing.
Acceptance of sentence indications
[12] Counsel are to file and serve memoranda no later than 3 pm on Thursday 2 August 2018 indicating whether their clients accept the indication. If the indications are accepted, both defendants will need to attend the criminal callover in the High Court at Rotorua on Friday 3 August 2018 at 9 am when their pleas would be taken.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
W T Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga Webby & Associates, Tauranga G C McArthur, Tauranga
0