R v Monk

Case [2022] NZHC 3427 14 December 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-070-001899

[2022] NZHC 3427

THE KING

v

BERNARD SIMON MONK ANTHONY PEETI

Hearing: 14 December 2022

Appearances:

Sunny Teki-Clark for the Crown Scott McColgan for Bernard Monk William Nabney for Anthony Peeti

Sentencing:

14 December 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v MONK & ANOR [2022] NZHC 3427 [14 December 2022]

Background

[1] Bernard Monk and Anthony Peeti, at the ages of 43 and 47 respectively, you appear together for sentence having been found guilty of aggravated burglary.1 The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

[2] I will first begin by describing the facts of your offending. These will obviously be familiar to you. But because sentencing is quintessentially a public function which is required to be undertaken in open Court, it is important that I set these out. I too am well familiar with the facts having presided over your trial and having seen and heard the witnesses.

[3] Because I am sentencing you together, to avoid confusion, I shall refer to you in the third person, which is not my normal practice. For that I apologise.

[4] Mr Monk was an associate of one of the victims, Mark Breingan. Mr Breingan stored Mr Monk’s caravan and bus on his rural property on McLaren Falls Road near Tauranga. Mr Monk tried to regain possession of them. He was unsuccessful. Quite why remains uncertain on the information before me.

[5] Both Mr Monk and Mr Peeti were previously patched members of the Rebels Motorcycle Club (“the Rebels”). Through that connection Mr Monk contacted his associates to help him. Those who were recruited included Mr Peeti. These were David Timoti, Jordan Para and William Reid. It is less clear whether the other co- offenders were known to him or how his instructions were conveyed to them. However, what cannot be contradicted is that Mr Monk asked that with the assistance of the others, his caravan and bus be retrieved and returned back to him, using violence if necessary. He also arranged for his sister, Michelle Monk, and Odean Thompson to travel from Auckland and be present. Their role was less obvious. The jury found both women not guilty. It follows they were unsure of their role and requisite

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a).

knowledge. For the purposes of this sentencing, I must operate on the basis that the jury was unsure they were involved; at least in the sense required by the law.

[6] In pursuit of the plan, on 25 January 2021, Mr Peeti and the other men travelled from Hunterville to Tauranga in a black BMW (“the BMW”). At this time Mr Monk was on electronically monitored bail in Auckland. Not far from Mr Breingan’s address, the men in the BMW met up with Ms Monk and Ms Thompson and then the two cars travelled in convoy to the address on McLaren Falls Road.

[7]Mr Breingan was…

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 Monk

Details

AGLC: R v Monk [2022] NZHC 3427
Case: [2022] NZHC 3427
Decision Date: 14 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bernard Monk and Anthony Peeti were jointly convicted of aggravated burglary by the High Court of New Zealand in Rotorua. Monk was found to have orchestrated an attack on Mark Breingan and Lisa Mercer to retrieve his caravan and bus from Breingan's property. Monk's co-offenders, including Peeti, carried out a violent assault on the victims using weapons such as a baseball bat and golf clubs, leaving them with severe injuries. The court identified several aggravating factors, including the planning and premeditation of the crime, the number of participants, the use of weapons, the level of violence, and the home invasion aspect. The starting point for sentencing was set at nine years' imprisonment, but adjustments were made based on personal circumstances. Monk received a discount for his rehabilitative efforts and remorse, resulting in a sentence of eight years and one month, reduced to six years and three months due to the totality principle. Peeti received a discount for his background and time spent on electronically monitored bail, resulting in a sentence of seven years and four months.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence for each defendant. For Monk, the court found that his role as the instigator and coordinator of the crime warranted a starting point of nine years, but adjustments were made for his personal circumstances, resulting in a final sentence of six years and three months. For Peeti, the court found that his lesser role in the crime warranted a starting point of nine years, but adjustments were made for his background and time spent on electronically monitored bail, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and four months. The court emphasized the importance of considering the totality of the sentence, ensuring that the cumulative sentence was not "crushing" and did not obliterate hope of reintegration into society.

Orders