R v Pairama - [2015] NZHC 2994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI--2014-019-4641 [2015] NZHC 2994

THE QUEEN

v

LESLIE MARK PAIRAMA AND
PAULINE TAWHA

Hearing: 26 and 27 November 2015

Counsel:

J Foster for the Crown
R Boot for Pairama
G Walsh for Tawha

Judgment:

27 November 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF FOGARTY J

Solicitors: Almao Douch, Hamilton

R v PAIRAMA AND TAWHA [2015] NZHC 2994 [27 November 2015]

Introduction

[1] Leslie Mark Pairama, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of participating in an organised criminal group; one charge of burglary; and one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

[2] Pauline Tawha, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of participating in an organised criminal group and one charge of burglary.

[3] Both of you were charged originally with other charges, including two charges of kidnapping, aggravated robbery and - in the case of Mr Pairama - unlawful possession of ammunition.

[4] A settlement was negotiated between the Crown, yourselves and other parties to this offending. The consequence is that the charges, to which you have not pleaded guilty, are not being pursued by the Crown and, accordingly, are dismissed under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, on the application of the Crown.

The offending

[5] In the summary of facts, a co-offender, McCallion, went to an address in Kihikihi. While at the address he spoke to a female victim who lived at the address and told her there were people looking for her. At that time he was texting on the phone. A short time later, you both arrived at the address, accompanied by up to five other associates.

[6] You, Mr Pairama, and your associates were wearing gang patches. You both entered the address with these associates. They forced the female victim and two male victims into the lounge room area where the curtains were pull closed. The victims did not know what was happening and they did what they were told, as they feared for their safety.

[7] The female victim had her eight month old child with her and when the female victim started to cry, you, Ms Tawha, screamed at her to shut up. You,

Mr Pairama, introduced yourself to the victims as “Lester Rogue”. You demanded

the keys to two of the vehicles at the address.

[8] You, Ms Tawha, verbally abused the victims and demanded the car keys from the female victim. One of the male victims was sitting on the coffee table in the lounge. One of your associates kicked him in the head. The kick caused the male victim’s head to connect with the wall.

[9] A set of keys to one of the vehicles demanded by you, Mr Pairama, were not at the house. You, Mr Pairama, then accompanied one of the victims to another address where the male victim uplifted the keys and gave them to you.

[10] During that period, the offender McCallion, and you, Ms Tawha, remained at the female victim’s home, together with your associates…

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 Pairama

Details

AGLC: R v Pairama [2015] NZHC 2994
Case: [2015] NZHC 2994
Decision Date: 27 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leslie Mark Pairama and Pauline Tawha were found guilty of participating in an organised criminal group, burglary, and unlawful possession of a firearm, among other charges. Pairama was also charged with evading the police. The Crown accepted a negotiated settlement with the defendants, dismissing other charges against them. The defendants had extensive criminal histories, with Pairama's history spanning twelve pages and Tawha's history totalling eighteen pages. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for the defendants, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the mitigating factors, such as their guilty pleas.

The court held that Pairama's involvement in the offending was more serious than Tawha's, warranting a longer sentence. The court determined that the starting point for Pairama's sentence should be four years, reflecting the gravity of the burglary charge and the involvement of an organised criminal group. The court then uplifted the starting point by six months, taking into account Pairama's lengthy criminal history and attitude to offending. The court also considered the unlawful possession of the firearm charge, ultimately imposing a sentence of six months imprisonment, cumulative on the burglary sentence. After applying a discount for Pairama's guilty plea, the court sentenced him to four and a half years imprisonment.

For Tawha, the court determined a starting point of three and a half years for the burglary and participating in an organised criminal group charges, six months less than Pairama's sentence due to her lesser role in the offending. The court then uplifted the starting point by six months, reflecting Tawha's extensive criminal history. The court also allowed a special deduction of six months for Tawha's efforts to rehabilitate herself while in prison, and a discount of approximately 10% for her guilty plea. The court sentenced Tawha to three years and two months imprisonment.

In conclusion, Leslie Mark Pairama was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment for his convictions, while Pauline Tawha was sentenced to three years and two months imprisonment. The sentences reflected the gravity of the offences, the defendants' criminal histories, and the mitigating factors, such as their guilty pleas.

Orders