R v Moses - [2022] NZHC 3089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-092-11754

[2022] NZHC 3089

THE KING

v

ANTHONY PAPAROA MOSES ALAN TUTERE COOPER

Hearing: 24 November 2022

Appearances:

C P Howard for Crown M J James for Mr Moses J D Bell for Mr Cooper

Sentence:

24 November 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v MOSES & COOPER [2022] NZHC 3089 [24 November 2022]

[1] Mr Moses and Mr Cooper, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty following a Judge alone trial on three charges of intentionally damaging property in circumstances where you knew or ought to have known that danger to life was likely to result.1 You were also found guilty on one charge of participating in an organised criminal group.2

[2]The maximum sentence for all charges is ten years imprisonment.

Background

[3] The charges were laid following a series of incidents that occurred in Otara on the afternoon of 20 November 2020.

[4] At the time of the offending you were both living in Hamilton. On the morning of 20 November 2020 you began driving your vehicles to Auckland. You stopped first at a service station in Huntly, where five vehicles arrived in convoy at 11.33 am. These were led by a white Ford Ranger Utility vehicle driven by Mr Paul Cassidy, a well- known member of the Killer Beez gang. You, Mr Moses, were driving an orange Holden Commodore motor vehicle whilst you, Mr Cooper, were driving a grey Honda Torneo.

[5] All five vehicles parked in a corner of the service station forecourt. CCTV footage showed the occupants of the vehicles socialising with each other around their vehicles. A short time later they gathered for a group photograph.

[6] A notable feature of the photograph is that several members of the group were wearing yellow and black coloured items of clothing. It is well known that the Killer Beez has adopted yellow and black as its colours. In addition, virtually everybody in the photograph is shown making a gesture associated with the Killer Beez. This involves the middle finger of each hand being extended upwards, with the remaining fingers folded down.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 269(1).
2 Section 98A.

[7] The vehicles left the service station in convoy led by Mr Cassidy’s Ford Ranger. They then travelled to the Mobil service station in Mercer, where they were captured on CCTV arriving one after the other at 12.12 pm. A few minutes earlier two other vehicles had arrived at the same service station. One of these was a black Mercedes driven by Mr Sean Thompson, who was to be tried with you but entered guilty pleas mid-way through the trial. The other vehicle was a silver BMW sedan. Both the Mercedes and the silver BMW were involved in the events that occurred in Otara later in the day. CCTV footage shows that occupants of these two vehicles immediately began socialising with…

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 Moses

Details

AGLC: R v Moses [2022] NZHC 3089
Case: [2022] NZHC 3089
Decision Date: 24 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand was a sentencing hearing for Anthony Paparoa Moses and Alan Tutere Cooper, who had been found guilty of multiple charges of intentional damage to property, knowing that such actions would likely result in danger to human life. They were also convicted of participating in an organised criminal group. The maximum penalty for these charges was ten years imprisonment. The charges stemmed from a series of incidents that took place on 20 November 2020, in Otara, where the defendants were part of a convoy of vehicles that fired shots at residential properties. The court had to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.

The court considered the premeditation and orchestration of the offending, the use of firearms in a populated area, and the impact on the victims as significant aggravating factors. The court also noted the extensive criminal histories of the defendants, although these were not considered relevant for sentencing purposes. For mitigating factors, the court took into account reports under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002, which detailed the deprived backgrounds of the defendants and their efforts towards rehabilitation. The court also considered the time spent on bail and the defendants' cooperation in efforts to shorten the trial. For Moses, the mitigating factors resulted in a total credit of one year and six months, reducing his sentence to five years imprisonment. For Cooper, the mitigating factors amounted to one year and four months, resulting in a sentence of five years and two months imprisonment. Both sentences were to be served concurrently.

In summary, the court sentenced Moses to five years imprisonment for participating in an organised criminal group and two years for the other charges, to be served concurrently. Cooper was sentenced to five years and two months imprisonment for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group and two years for the other charges, also to be served concurrently. The court took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the sentences imposed on other offenders within the group, in determining the appropriate sentences for Moses and Cooper.

Orders