R v Maru - [2012] NZHC 1411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-054-000267 [2012] NZHC 1411

THE QUEEN

v

HENRY TUKINO MARU

Hearing: 20 June 2012

Counsel: E C Killeen for Crown
C B Wilkinson-Smith for Prisoner

Sentence: 20 June 2012

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Maru, you appear before me today having pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery; an offence that has a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

[2] The District Court has declined jurisdiction to deal with you so that the suitability of a sentence of preventive detention could be assessed.

[3] This is the main question on which I must decide. I have considered it very carefully. I appreciate the seriousness of the penalty, and its purpose, namely that it
should be imposed where necessary to protect the community from those who pose a

R V MARU HC PMN CRI-2012-054-000267 [20 June 2012]

significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members.1 I have received and reviewed the required health assessor reports, namely those of Dr Barry-Walsh and Ms Fon. I have read all the material available and carefully considered submissions from counsel.

Personal circumstances

[4] Unfortunately Mr Maru, you are well known to the courts. You were born in

1973 and are 39 years old. After the tragic death of your brother when you were 15, you left school with no formal qualifications. You fell in with the wrong crowd. Your use and abuse of substances, including alcohol, cannabis and glue, began to escalate.

[5] Over the next twenty years, you were convicted of several offences. These ranged from counts of male assaults female, assault with a blunt instrument and shoplifting, to one instance of unlawful sexual connection, to several other convictions for aggravated robbery. The aggravated robbery convictions were entered in 1999 (two counts) and 2007, respectively.

[6] As Dr Barry-Walsh has diagnosed, in addition to your addiction to substances, you also suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. The symptoms of this illness began to manifest from the time you were 16. You were subsequently detained at the Te Awhina Psychiatric Unit, then moved to the Lake Alice treatment centre, then to hospitals and other supporting centres. However, diagnosis of your specific condition did not occur until mid-way through these transfers, in 2000. Before then, it was thought to be a principally drug-induced illness. Now, however, you have been taking medication for the condition and it seems to be under control.

[7] As a result of your previous offending and recognised mental illness, you have been incarcerated in some shape or form for the vast majority of the past two decades. As both Dr Barry-Walsh and Ms Fon have reported, you have, in effect, become institutionalised. Despite undertaking programmes to help facilitate a
smooth release from prison, you have continued to reoffend.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 87(1).

[8] Against that background, your current offending can be described briefly. At about 6.15am on 30 January 2012, you left your flat on…

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 Maru

Details

AGLC: R v Maru [2012] NZHC 1411
Case: [2012] NZHC 1411
Decision Date: 20 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Henry Tukino Maru appeared before the High Court of New Zealand in Palmerston North on 20 June 2012, having pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery. The court had to decide whether the defendant was suitable for a sentence of preventive detention, given the maximum penalty for the offence was 14 years imprisonment. The defendant had a history of substance abuse, paranoid schizophrenia, and multiple convictions for aggravated robbery and other offences. The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his mental health and previous convictions, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors of the current offence. The court concluded that a finite term of imprisonment was appropriate, with a minimum period of four years, and declined to impose preventive detention. The court also issued a "three strikes" warning, stating that if the defendant committed another serious violent offence, he would receive a final warning and serve any resulting sentence without parole.

The court carefully considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, as well as the relevant statutory factors for imposing preventive detention. The court found that the defendant's risk to the community could be suitably managed through a lengthy finite term of imprisonment and the possibility of an extended supervision order on release. The court also considered the defendant's remorse and early guilty plea as mitigating factors. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of six years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of four years, was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders