R v Ohlson - [2021] NZHC 3499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-2105

[2021] NZHC 3499

THE QUEEN

v

HARETE OHLSON

Hearing: 16 December 2021

Appearances:

S Bird for Crown

F Wood for Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v OHLSON [2021] NZHC 3499 [16 December 2021]

[1] Ms Ohlson, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to two charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, three charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. You have also pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and participating in an organised criminal group.

[2] In terms of penalty the most serious charges are those of kidnapping and wounding, or causing grievous bodily harm, with intent to do so. Those charges each carry a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. The remaining charges carry lower maximum penalties.

[3] You entered your guilty pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 27 September 2021.1 This will be annexed to my sentencing notes and will form part of them.

The facts

[4] The offending occurred after you became involved in a plan by Ms Rickylee Dixon to gain retribution, or compensation, for the fact that she believed the female victim had stolen methamphetamine from her. This led her to arrange for the victim to be kidnapped on two separate occasions. On each occasion she was subjected to substantial and prolonged bouts of physical violence using weapons. The object of both exercises was to extort money from the victim’s father, no doubt to provide compensation for the allegedly stolen methamphetamine.

[5] You were not involved in the first incident, which occurred on 12 September 2020. However, you became involved in the second incident. This began on the afternoon of 21 October 2020 and extended through to the rest of the next day.

[6] On 21 October 2020 Rickylee Dixon arranged for the victim to be taken to the carpark of a shopping mall on a pretext. The victim was then ordered to get into Ms Dixon’s car, and she was driven around the streets of Rotorua. During the afternoon Ms Dixon and her associates stopped at a tavern and kept the victim effectively

1 R v Ohslon [2021] NZHC 2536.

imprisoned inside the vehicle whilst they were there. Ms Dixon and her associates had taken the victim’s cellphone and handbag from her so she could not call for help. There is no suggestion you played any active role in the events that occurred on the afternoon of 21 October.

[7] However, at the end of the day Ms Dixon and her associates took the victim to a motel where Ms Dixon was staying. The next morning Ms Dixon made contact with the victim’s father and told him to go to a designated place so that he could bring money to…

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 Ohlson

Details

AGLC: R v Ohlson [2021] NZHC 3499
Case: [2021] NZHC 3499
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ohlson involved sentencing for multiple charges including kidnapping, participating in an organised criminal group, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The defendant, Harete Ohlson, pleaded guilty to these charges after a detailed sentence indication was provided by the court. The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately deciding on a final sentence. The court noted the premeditated and violent nature of the offending, the significant injuries inflicted on the victim, and the defendant's background, which included a history of involvement in gangs and substance abuse. The court also considered the defendant's guilty pleas and willingness to engage in restorative justice. After applying the mitigating factors, the court determined a final sentence of six years imprisonment, to be served concurrently. This decision reflected the gravity of the offences, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the need for both punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders