R v Moananui

The case of R v Moananui involved three defendants, Jeremiah Su’a, Mariota Su’a, and Quentin Moananui, who were found guilty of Codi Wilkinson’s manslaughter, wounding Kyle Rowe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and participation in an organised criminal group. The defendants were associated with the Mongrel Mob Aotearoa and were involved in a violent attack on Codi and Kyle, who were junior members of the same gang. The court heard victim impact statements from Codi’s family, which highlighted the devastating effects of the attack on them. In sentencing the defendants, the court considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, including holding the defendants accountable, denouncing their conduct, and protecting the community.

The court determined that the defendants' offending fell into band three of the Taueki guidelines, which suggested a starting point between nine- and 14-years' imprisonment. The court considered various aggravating factors, including premeditation, use of weapons, extreme violence, and gang warfare. The court also considered personal mitigating factors, such as socio-economic deprivation and abusive upbringings, which led the defendants to seek solace in the gang world.

The court imposed a starting point of 15 years for Jeremiah, 12 years for Mariota, and 12 years for Quentin. The court uplifted the starting points for the wounding charges and imposed concurrent sentences for the kidnapping charges. The court also imposed a 15 per cent discount for each defendant based on Section 27 factors, such as socio-economic deprivation and early exposure to violence. The court did not impose minimum periods of imprisonment, as it believed that the purposes of accountability, denunciation, and deterrence had already been addressed in the sentences.

Finally, the court issued a stage 1 warning under the Three Strikes Law, which meant that if the defendants were convicted of any further serious violent offence, they would receive a second strike, and any sentence of imprisonment imposed would be served without parole or early release. If they were convicted of a further serious violent offence after that, they would receive a third strike, and the court would have to impose the maximum penalty for the offence, to be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust.