Legal Research
Cases
R v Parata

R v Parata

Case [2022] NZHC 3503 16 December 2022

Personal Circumstances

Time on Bail

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2020-042-1510

[2022] NZHC 3503

THE KING

v

DESMOND PARATA MAHUTA TE AO

KELLY DUKES THOMPSON

Hearing: 16 December 2022

Appearances:

A Goodison and M Harris for Crown E J Riddell for Defendant Parata

T Bamford for Defendant Te Ao
M J Vesty for Defendant Thompson

Sentencing Date:

16 December 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF McQUEEN J

Introduction

[1] Desmond Parata, Kelly Thompson, and Mahuta Te Ao, you each appear via AVL for sentencing today on charges to which you have pleaded guilty. Mr Parata and Mr Te Ao, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery.1 Mr Thompson, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated robbery, and one charge of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent).2

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(B); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a
$6,000 fine.

R v PARATA, TE AO & THOMPSON [2022] NZHC 3503 [16 December 2022]

[2] I start by setting out the sentencing method that I will apply. I will first describe the nature of your offending and assess the appropriate starting point for offending of this kind. I will then address discounts from the starting point arising from any matters that are personal to each of you.

[3] I must sentence you in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002. In particular, I must consider the need to hold you accountable for your offending, promote in you a sense of responsibility for the harm that you have caused; to denounce your offending; and to deter you and others from similar offending. Your rehabilitation and reintegration are also relevant in fixing the end sentence. The law requires me to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

The offending

[4] All three of you were known to the flatmates of the victim. On an earlier visit to one of those flatmates at the property, about a month before the offending, Mr Thompson and Mr Te Ao, you acted to intimidate the victim at the property. By coincidence, the police attended the property to speak with the victim’s flatmate. However, Mr Te Ao, you believed the victim had called the police on you.

[5] On 25 July 2020, Mr Te Ao and Mr Parata, you went to the flat with the purpose of visiting another of the victim’s flatmates known to you. You sat in the lounge with the victim, and both smoked some methamphetamine with his flatmate. During this time, Mr Te Ao, you became agitated. You started to insult and berate the victim, particularly for “calling the police” on you during your last visit. You told the victim he now owed you $100 as compensation. During this time, Mr Parata, you took out a black BB gun (being an imitation firearm) from an inside jacket pocket and gestured towards…

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 Parata

Details

AGLC: R v Parata [2022] NZHC 3503
Case: [2022] NZHC 3503
Decision Date: 16 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Desmond Parata, Mahuta Te Ao, and Kelly Thompson were sentenced by McQueen J for their involvement in two aggravated robberies against a common victim. The defendants had pleaded guilty to various charges, including aggravated robbery and driving while disqualified. The court assessed the seriousness of the offending, considering factors such as the presence of weapons, the level of premeditation, and the psychological impact on the victim. The starting points for sentencing were determined based on comparable cases and the specific circumstances of each defendant's involvement. Personal circumstances, including backgrounds of abuse, neglect, and addiction, were taken into account to determine appropriate discounts. The court also considered the defendants' guilty pleas, remorse, and time spent on electronic monitoring bail. Ultimately, the sentences imposed reflected the need for accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation, with Parata and Te Ao receiving sentences of two years and two months and two years and four months respectively for the aggravated robberies, and Thompson receiving two years and one month for the aggravated robbery and an additional six months for the driving while disqualified charge, to be served concurrently. The court also ordered the destruction of the BB gun used in the offending and prohibited contact with the victim and his partner upon release.

Orders