R v Nelson - [2015] NZHC 963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 963

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM NELSON

Hearing: 7 May 2015

Appearances:

M R Walker and M J Hammer for Crown
G Newell for Defendant

Sentence:

7 May 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v NELSON [2015] NZHC 963 [7 May 2015]

[1] Mr Nelson, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of participating in a riot. That charge carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. I record that I have entered a conviction on the charge.

[2] You were originally charged with the more serious charge of riotous damage. This carried a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. The new charge to which you have now pleaded guilty reflects the Crown’s acceptance that your involvement in the incident underlying the charge was less than the Crown originally believed to be the case.

Background

[3] The charge arises out of a riot that occurred at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility on the weekend of 1 June 2013. This caused significant damage that required repairs costing about $5 million.

[4] The riot occurred in a medium security unit that contained two pods. On the morning in question, these held a total of 88 prisoners. You were being held in one of the two pods.

[5] The riot began when one-half of the prisoners in the unit were released for morning exercise. The prisoners were released into an open area in the pod. Almost immediately, corrections officers noticed that a large number of the prisoners appeared to be intoxicated. They were able to tell this from the manner in which the prisoners were behaving after being released into the unit. Very shortly after the prisoners were released, a scuffle broke out. This led to two corrections officers going into the yard to intervene. Having separated the fighting prisoners, the prisoners moved to another area of the pod. There another scuffle broke out. The two corrections officers again went to intervene. On this occasion, they were set upon by a large number of prisoners. As a result, two officers who were in the staff base were forced to go into the pod and guide the other two officers to safety. From that point on, a large-scale riot occurred in which furniture and property were destroyed. Broken pieces of furniture were used as weapons to attack the staff base in which the corrections officers had sought refuge.

[6] The incident went on for some considerable time. During this period extensive damage was caused to the pod and staff base as a result of the smashing of windows and attempting to smash through the doors of the base. The corrections officers inside the base were in a sense being held hostage by the mob of rioting prisoners outside. The riot included the lighting of fires in the pod onto which the prisoners heaped broken property and other items. This obviously caused a significant amount of damage and also…

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 Nelson

Details

AGLC: R v Nelson [2015] NZHC 963
Case: [2015] NZHC 963
Decision Date: 7 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, William Nelson, appeared for sentencing following a guilty plea to the charge of participating in a riot. The offence arose from a significant riot that took place at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility over the weekend of 1 June 2013, which caused extensive damage estimated at around $5 million. Nelson was initially charged with a more serious offence of riotous damage, which carried a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. However, following the guilty plea, the Crown accepted that Nelson's involvement was less than initially believed, and the charge was reduced to participating in a riot, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, considering the starting point, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the plea of guilty.

The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the severity of the offence and the defendant's culpability. The Crown suggested a starting point of 18 months imprisonment, which the court deemed appropriate for a similar case. However, the court found Nelson's culpability to be less extensive and decided on a starting point of 13 months imprisonment. The court also considered aggravating factors, such as Nelson's extensive criminal history involving violence, which warranted a modest uplift of two months, resulting in an end starting point of 15 months imprisonment. On the other hand, the court acknowledged Nelson's guilty plea as a mitigating factor, albeit not at the lowest end of the scale due to his encouragement of property destruction. Consequently, the court applied a reduction of three months, or approximately 20 per cent, to reflect the guilty plea.

The court sentenced Nelson to 12 months imprisonment for participating in a riot, to be served concurrently with the existing sentence he was already serving. The decision took into account the starting point, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the plea of guilty. The court found that Nelson's involvement in the riot, while not as extensive as initially believed, still warranted a significant sentence due to the severity of the offence and the defendant's criminal history. However, the court also recognised the benefit of the guilty plea, which led to a reduction in the sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, which balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the recognition of the defendant's guilty plea.

Orders