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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Martin & Taitapanui and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 2270
Decision Date: 30 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin & Taitapanui involved two defendants, Rihari Martin and Trent Taitapanui, who were charged with participating in an organised criminal group and rioting. The defendants pleaded guilty to these charges following a sentence indication given by Lang J on 30 July 2018. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendants, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. The court selected a starting point of three years and three months imprisonment for both defendants. The defendants had previous convictions, some of which were for violence, but the sentences imposed in relation to those charges were at the lower end of the scale. Therefore, the court did not add any uplift for previous convictions. The court allowed a discount of eight months, or around 20%, for the guilty pleas, which were entered at a relatively late stage. This brought the end sentence to two years and seven months imprisonment. The court further applied a discount of two months to reflect the helpful comments in the pre-sentence reports and the letters of remorse and support from family and friends. However, the court did not reduce the sentence to one at which a sentence of home detention was viable, as doing so would be to provide discounts at a wholly unrealistic level.

In summary, the court sentenced both defendants to two years and five months imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group and nine months imprisonment for rioting. These sentences were to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of two years and five months imprisonment. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the defendants' guilty pleas and expressions of remorse.

Orders