R v Ormsby-Turner - [2023] NZHC 1817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2022-043-937

[2023] NZHC 1817

THE KING

v

TANA ORMSBY-TURNER

Hearing: 12 July 2023

Appearances:

C E Clarke and H Bullock for the Crown K Pascoe for the Defendant

Judgment:

12 July 2023

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Tana Ormsby-Turner you have pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,1 and one charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder and for the avoidance of doubt I enter convictions for those two offences.2

In explaining the sentence that I intend to impose upon you I will:

(a)First outline the facts of the offending and its implications.

(b)Second, I will assess what the starting point is for offending of this kind in terms of the period of imprisonment that would be involved.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act, ss 71 and 176, maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

R v ORMSBY-TURNER [2023] NZHC 1817 [12 July 2023]

(c)Finally, I will address all the circumstances that are personal to you, including particularly the impact of your youth, and arrive at the final sentence.

[3] After explaining the sentence that I intend to impose, I will also then address the question of name suppression that you have applied for.

The facts

[4] I begin by outlining the facts of the offending. Those facts are set out in the summary of facts to which you have entered your guilty pleas.

[5] The offending involves your assault of Rei Marshall, who was a 23 year old prospect of the Uru Taha gang. You attacked him on the evening of 3 August 2022 at an address in South Road, New Plymouth. Your older brother, Turanganui-John also fatally attacked Mr Marshall at the same time, and he has been convicted and sentenced for murder.

[6] Mr Marshall arrived at the address in his car. The address was a known Mongrel Mob address. You were there with Turanganui-John and Hamiora Laupama. Turanganui-John was the president of the West Coast chapter of the Mongrel Mob. Mr Laupama was a patched member and you were a prospect. Your group became annoyed when they saw Mr Marshall arrive given his association with the Uru Taha gang.

[7] The three of you went inside the address to collect another person and a red bag containing a semi-automatic shotgun and a semi-automatic high powered rifle. The three of you had earlier arranged to engage in a “taxing” operation. You left the address through the back door with the bag. Mr Marshall was also going in and out of the front of the address putting food into his car which he was going to take to his mother. When doing so he had a confrontation with Mr Laupama. Mr Marshall and Mr Laupama walked towards one another, and Mr Marshall took a swing at Mr Laupama but missed.

[8] Turanganui-John was behind…

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 Ormsby-Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Ormsby-Turner [2023] NZHC 1817
Case: [2023] NZHC 1817
Decision Date: 12 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tana Ormsby-Turner was convicted of one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature of the offending and personal circumstances of the defendant. The key legal issues were the starting point for the sentencing, the impact of the defendant's youth, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court determined the starting point for the wounding charge to be seven and a half years' imprisonment, taking into account the use of a weapon, attack to the head, and serious injury. However, the court reduced the starting point to reflect that the defendant was responding to a fight and under significant influence from his older brother. The court considered personal factors, including the defendant's age, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation. Reports indicated that the defendant had the potential to change his life and avoid a future of crime, violence, and misery. Based on these factors, the court decided on a sentence of 12 months' home detention with conditions, and a further 12 months of standard post-detention conditions. The defendant was also convicted and discharged on the accessory charge. The court declined the application for name suppression, stating that the needs of open justice prevailed.

Orders