R v Paleaaesina - [2017] NZHC 1038

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL [RETRIAL]. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-092-005315 [2017] NZHC 1038

THE QUEEN

v

BECOYLEE ROGERS PALEAAESINA

Hearing: 19 May 2017

Appearances:

H Benson-Pope for Crown
P K Hamlin for Defendant

Judgment:

19 May 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF GILBERT J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland
P K Hamlin, Barrister, Auckland

R v PALEAAESINA [2017] NZHC 1038 [19 May 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Paleaaesina, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping a 50-year-old female on 29 February 2016. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.

The facts

[2] You were a member of the Ghost Unit, a group linked to the Head Hunters gang. You and other members of the Ghost Unit agreed to become involved as “hired muscle” in a plan to kidnap the victim who was not known to you. You met with other members of the group on the afternoon of 14 February 2016 when the initial plan to kidnap the victim was formulated.

[3] In the early hours of the following morning, you and the other members of this group travelled in three vehicles to the victim’s address. You remained with the vehicles while other members of the group went to her house but they were unable to locate her. This kidnapping attempt was abandoned when police attended after having been alerted by a member of the public that the group was acting in a suspicious manner. You and the others returned home at that stage.

[4] After this failed attempt, you were admitted to hospital on 17 February 2016 for treatment to your big toes. You were kept in hospital for five days and discharged on 22 February 2016.

[5] While you were in hospital, a new kidnapping plan was formulated. This was to draw the victim out of her house on the pretence of arranging a drug deal while members of the Ghost Unit waited in three vehicles ready to take and detain her. A second group, including you, was to be parked a few streets away. Another group was to wait in a further vehicle at a nearby restaurant.

[6] You were not involved in planning this further kidnapping attempt and you were no longer able to assist as hired muscle because you were still recovering from your hospital treatment and were wearing special medical footwear. However, you

were stationed in the vehicle that was parked a few streets away from the victim’s address and acted as a “lookout”.

[7] The victim was duly persuaded to leave her address and she was kidnapped by other members of the group. Your physical involvement ended at that stage and you took no further part in the events that led to the victim being detained, assaulted…

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 Paleaaesina

Details

AGLC: R v Paleaaesina [2017] NZHC 1038
Case: [2017] NZHC 1038
Decision Date: 19 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Mr. Becoylee Rogers Paleaaesina was sentenced for his involvement in a kidnapping offence. He pleaded guilty to the kidnapping of a 50-year-old female on 29 February 2016, with the maximum penalty being 14 years' imprisonment. The case involved a group linked to the Head Hunters gang, known as the Ghost Unit, who were hired to carry out the kidnapping. Although Mr. Paleaaesina was not directly involved in the assault and fatal injury of the victim, he participated as a lookout and expressed approval for the assault via text message.

The primary legal issues in the case were determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the offender's culpability and deciding whether a sentence of imprisonment or home detention was more appropriate given Mr. Paleaaesina's limited role and personal mitigating factors. The court considered his limited involvement, acceptance of responsibility, genuine remorse, and the support of his family in reaching a decision.

The court, in agreement with a previous sentence indication, set a starting point of three years' imprisonment for Mr. Paleaaesina's culpability. It granted discounts for his prior good character, lack of previous convictions, genuine remorse, and high motivation to live an offence-free life, as well as his guilty plea. This resulted in an adjusted end sentence of 24 months' imprisonment. However, considering his limited role in the offending and the strong support from his family, the court decided that a sentence of home detention was the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, Mr. Paleaaesina was sentenced to 12 months' home detention with specific conditions including residence at a designated address, participation in any recommended programmes, and prohibitions on alcohol, drugs, and association with co-offenders without written approval.

Orders