R v Paea - [2015] NZHC 1705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-006353 [2015] NZHC 1705

THE QUEEN

v

JUNIOR IOLIMO PAEA

Hearing: 23 July 2015

Appearances:

C P Paterson for Crown
P T R Heaslip for Defendant

Sentence:

23 July 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Copy to:
P T R Heaslip, Auckland

R v PAEA [2015] NZHC 1705 [23 July 2015]

[1] Mr Paea, you have been found guilty on one count of kidnapping and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and you are here today to be sentenced.

[2] The maximum sentence on the kidnapping offending is 14 years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the attempting to pervert the course of justice offending is seven years’ imprisonment.

[3] My sentence will be in five parts:

(a) First, I will set out an overview of the facts of your offending; (b) Second, I will talk about your personal circumstances;
(c) Third, I will summarise the submissions made by the Crown and on your behalf;

(d) Fourth, I will set out my assessment of sentence for you; and

(e) Fifth, I will hand down my sentence. [4] You may sit until I hand down the sentence.

[5] As a preliminary point, you were due to be sentenced with a co-offender, Mr Slaimankhel. However, his sentencing was adjourned in light of the advice of his counsel that the pre-sentencing report did not properly reflect Mr Slaimankhel’s acceptance of the offending. It is necessary today however to examine his role in the offending in order to make sense of your culpability.

Overview of facts

[6] In February 2013, Mr Slaimankhel was on bail with a condition that he did not consume or possess controlled substances unless prescribed by a medical practitioner. On 1 February 2013 he was observed with the victim of the kidnapping,

Mr Yacoub, in the Sylvia Park car park. They were seen retrieving a bag from the boot of Mr Yacoub’s car and placing it in Mr Slaimankhel’s own car. Later that day Mr Slaimankhel was stopped by the police and a search of his vehicle revealed a white plastic bag containing 1,084 mint green tablets. He was arrested for being in breach of bail and remanded in custody until 4 February 2013 and then released pending a defended bail hearing.

[7] On 4 February 2013 a search warrant was executed at Mr Yacoub’s home address and a small quantity of identical green tablets was located in a shoe box containing other anabolic steroids. Mr Yacoub gave an interview to the police stating that Mr Slaimankhel had arranged for the green pills to be delivered to his house, and for him to hand over to Mr Slaimankhel once they arrived.

[8] When Mr Slaimankhel had heard that Mr Yacoub had been interviewed by the police, he became suspicious that Mr Yacoub had misrepresented the position. He decided that it was necessary to have Mr Yacoub provide an affidavit on his behalf…

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 Paea

Details

AGLC: R v Paea [2015] NZHC 1705
Case: [2015] NZHC 1705
Decision Date: 23 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Paea, Junior Iolimo Paea was convicted of kidnapping and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court was required to decide on an appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court needed to assess the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, as well as the offender's culpability and the impact on the victim.

The court found that while the kidnapping was premeditated and caused significant emotional harm to the victim, the actual threats of violence were not particularly aggravating. The offender's culpability was considered to be lower than the main instigator, and he had shown a high level of remorse and a commitment to rehabilitation. The court also noted the offender's supportive family and his strong familial values.

Considering the totality of the offending and the mitigating factors, the court determined that a starting point of two and a half years was appropriate. However, after applying a 20% discount for the mitigating factors, the end sentence would have been 24 months of imprisonment. Given the offender's culpability and personal circumstances, the court decided that a sentence of 12 months' home detention was the least restrictive outcome appropriate to the circumstances. The court also issued a first strike warning to the offender, advising him of the consequences of another serious violence conviction under the three strikes law.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months' home detention on Junior Iolimo Paea for the offences of kidnapping and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The sentence was to be served concurrently, and the home detention address was specified in the sentencing notes. The court also issued a first strike warning to the offender regarding the consequences of another serious violence conviction under the three strikes law.

Orders