R v Martin & Taitapanui

[2018] NZHC 2270

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 2270

THE QUEEN

v

RIHARI KARITIANA MARTIN TRENT TAITAPANUI

Hearing:	30 August 2018
Appearances:	R W Jenson for Crown H Roose for Defendants
Judgment:	30 August 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v MARTIN & TAITAPANUI [2018] NZHC 2270 [30 August 2018]

[1]    Mr Martin and Mr Taitapanui, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of participating in an organised criminal group1 and rioting.2 You entered your guilty pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 30 July 2018.3

[2]    Given that you have now entered your guilty pleas, the Crown offers no evidence on the remaining charges that you face. I therefore make an order under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 discharging you on those charges.

[3]    There is no need for me to repeat the facts of the case. These were set out fully in my sentence indication and it will be annexed to me sentencing remarks and form part of them. In short, you participated in an incident in Whakatane on 17 January 2017 in which members of the Black Power group, with whom you are associated, gathered as a show of force against the Mongrel Mob. This ultimately led to shots being fired by a member of your group in the direction of the Mongrel Mob. This has given rise to both charges.

[4]    I selected a starting point in both of your cases of three years three months imprisonment. I did not add any uplift to reflect criminal convictions. I then applied a discount of eight months, or around 20 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas notwithstanding the fact that they were entered at a relatively late stage. This produced an end sentence of two years seven months imprisonment.

[5]    I have now received helpful pre-sentence report in relation to both of you. I have also received your letters expressing remorse and letters from family and friends who support you. I propose to apply a further discount of two months to reflect those factors. I regret, however, that I cannot accede to your counsels’ submission that I should reduce the sentence to one at which a sentence of home detention is viable. To do so would be to provide discounts at a wholly unrealistic level. I would hope, however, that the helpful comments in the pre-sentence reports will find favour with the parole authorities.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.

2      Crimes At 1961, s 87.

3      R v Martin & Taitapanui [2018] NZHC 1900.

Sentence

[6]    On the charges of participating in an organised criminal group, you are both sentenced to two years five months imprisonment. On the rioting charge, you are sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

[7]    Those sentences are to be served concurrently, which means you will serve an effective sentence of two years five months imprisonment.

Lang J

Crown Solicitor, Tauranga H Roose, Barrister, Rotorua

G McArthur, Barrister, 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-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CRI-2017-087-131 [2018] NZHC 1900

THE QUEEN

V

RIHARI KARAITIANA MARTIN TRENT TAITAPANUI

Hearing:  30 July 2018 Appearances:      R W Jenson for Crown

H Roose for Defendants

Judgment:                  30 July 2018

SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J

[1]                   Mr Martin and Mr Trent Taitapanui face charges of participating in an organised criminal group and rioting. They have sought a sentence indication in relation to those charges.

[2]                   A sentence indication is an indication of the sentence the Court would impose if the defendants were to enter guilty pleas within the near future. If the indication is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial, the sentence to be imposed will be determined by the trial Judge having regard to the facts as he or she sees them to be. The sentence indication at that stage would have no force or weight.

The charges

[3]                   The charges relate to an incident that occurred on 17 January 2017 in Valley Road, Whakatane. On that date a very large funeral procession comprising members and associates of the Mongrel Mob passed through Whakatane. Members of the rival Black Power gang took exception to the presence of the funeral procession and attacked it from a service lane near the intersection of Valley Road and Arawa Street. They hurled missiles, including rocks and bottles, at cars in the procession. This prompted somebody in the Mongrel Mob procession to respond by firing one or more shotgun blasts towards the attackers.

[4]                   The Black Power responded by mobilising and going to Arawa Street. They were approximately 150 metres from the funeral procession at the corner of Arawa Road and Valley Road. By this stage the procession had stopped and around 200 members of the Mongrel Mob were gathered at the intersection of Arawa and Valley Roads. The two groups began taunting each other.

[5]                   A silver Mitsubishi Galant then arrived in Arawa Road. From this, firearms were taken and handed to a Black Power member, Mr Karaneihana Taipeti. He discharged the shotgun on two occasions in the direction of the Mongrel Mob members at the other end of the street. Adding to the situation was the fact that several police officers were standing in front of the group of Mongrel Mob in an effort to keep them apart from the Black Power group.

[6]                   The case against the defendants will depend on film footage taken by one or more bystanders who recorded the events that occurred on their cellphones. The role played by both defendants was to taunt members of the Mongrel Mob and thereby encourage what was going on. This also led to them committing the offences of rioting and participating in an organised criminal group.

[7]                   The Crown accepts that the defendants did not arrive in the silver Mitsubishi Galant. Rather, they arrived on foot a short time after the arrival of the vehicle. They became aware, however, of the fact that firearms were being used, or were about to be used. By entering a plea they would be acknowledging that they agreed to participate in the organised criminal group that had as its objective the discharge of firearms with reckless disregard for the safety of the Mongrel Mob.

Starting point

[8]                   The Crown submits the starting point should be between three and four years imprisonment. Mr Roose for the defendants submits the offending is at the lower end of that range. He points out that when the person who actually discharged the shots was sentenced, the Judge took a starting point of six years imprisonment on the lead charge of participating in an organised criminal group.4 Mr Roose submits that the criminality of these defendants falls far below that of the main offender.

[9]                   I agree with that submission. My initial impression was that a starting point of around four years imprisonment was appropriate. Having heard Mr Roose’s submissions, I propose to select a starting point of three years three months imprisonment.

Aggravating factors

[10]               Both defendants have previous convictions, some of which are for violence. However, the sentences imposed in relation to those charges were very much at the lower end of the scale. For that reason I do not propose to add any uplift for previous convictions.

4      R v Taipeti [2018] NZHC 1482.

Mitigating factors

[11]               The next issue is the level of discount to be provided for guilty pleas. These would be entered less than four weeks before the trial is due to commence. On that basis the Crown suggests a starting point of 15 per cent. I acknowledge a case can be made for discounts at that level, but this is the first occasion on which the defendants have had an opportunity to enter pleas on the basis that the Crown would not proceed with the remaining charges. For that reason I would be prepared to allow a discount of eight months, which is around 20 per cent. This brings the end sentence to one of around two years seven months imprisonment.

[12]               I do not know whether any discount could be applied at sentencing for other mitigating factors. That would need to be determined having regard to information contained in pre-sentence reports if guilty pleas are entered. The indication at this stage is therefore that each defendant would receive a sentence of two years seven months imprisonment.

Acceptance of indication

[13]               The defendants will have until 3 pm on Thursday 2 August 2018 to accept the indication. Mr Roose should file a memorandum prior to then indicating his clients’ intentions. If they wish to accept the indication they will need to be present at the criminal callover in the High Court at Rotorua on Friday 3 August 2018, when their pleas will be taken.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Tauranga H Roose, Barrister, Rotorua