R v Paul

Case [2023] NZHC 1985 27 July 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF SENTENCE INDICATION

GIVEN TO CO-DEFENDANT MATANGIRAU CUFF IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL CO-DEFENDANT CUFF HAS BEEN SENTENCED. REFER FOOTNOTE 8.

PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-072-000048

[2023] NZHC 1985

THE KING

v

BEAU-JAMES PAUL

Hearing: 27 July 2023

Appearances:

R Mann for the Crown H Redwood for Mr Paul

Sentencing:

27 July 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Counsel: H Redwood, Barrister, Auckland

R v PAUL [2023] NZHC 1985 [27 July 2023]

[1] Mr Paul, you were one of 11 defendants who went to trial on charges arising out of rioting at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Six of your co- defendants pleaded guilty to amalgamated charges prior to trial.

[2] Four weeks into the trial you and six other defendants pleaded guilty to three representative charges: arson (with a danger to life),1 riotous damage,2 and assault with a weapon.3 The three charges are an amalgamation of charges in the Crown Charge Notice dated 28 June 2022. At the time you pleaded guilty you accepted the contents of a summary of facts dated 13 March 2023.

Factual background

[3] Although you are familiar with the facts it is necessary for me to summarise them in my decision. I repeat the summary from my sentencing decision of Leon Huritu,4 one of your co-offenders.

[4] You were in custody on remand in the High Security Facility at Waikeria Prison at the time of the riot.

[5] On the morning of 29 December 2020 an incident occurred in one of the exercise yards, yard 116, when a prisoner refused to return a disposable razor (or razors) to a Corrections officer. Several other prisoners offered that prisoner their support. You were not one of those prisoners. You were not, in fact, in yard 116 at the time. When a Corrections officer told those in the yard they would all be returned to their cells early if the razors were not surrendered, a number of prisoners in the yard told the Corrections officer they were not going anywhere and were ready for a fight. Eventually one razor was handed in, the situation was defused and tensions eased. The prisoners in yard 116 were then permitted to remain in the yard for the usual period.

[6] By around 1.00 pm a significantly more hostile atmosphere had developed in yard 116. Nine of the prisoners (the group) set in train the events that led to the riot.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 267(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 90. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 202C(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Huritu [2023] NZHC 1960.

They damaged property in the yard. They lit fires on top of the wooden seats and structures inside the yard. Efforts made…

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 Paul

Details

AGLC: R v Paul [2023] NZHC 1985
Case: [2023] NZHC 1985
Decision Date: 27 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Beau-James Paul, one of eleven defendants charged with offences arising from a riot at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Paul pleaded guilty to three charges: arson with a danger to life, riotous damage, and assault with a weapon. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature and severity of the offences, as well as mitigating and aggravating factors. The Crown argued for a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, while the defence suggested a starting point of seven to seven and a half years. The court ultimately adopted a starting point of nine years and six months' imprisonment, considering the unprecedented scale of the riot and the significant damage caused.

The court assessed various personal factors to determine the final sentence. These factors included Paul's guilty plea, which resulted in a five per cent discount, and his expression of genuine remorse, which warranted an additional five per cent discount. The court also considered Paul's personal circumstances, including his challenging upbringing and struggles with substance abuse, which led to a 15 per cent discount. The court further acknowledged Paul's prospects for rehabilitation, warranting a five per cent discount. Additionally, the court recognised the time Paul spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail, granting a five-month reduction in his sentence.

The court sentenced Paul to six years and two months' imprisonment for the charge of arson, and five years' imprisonment for each of the other two charges, to be served concurrently. The court discharged Paul on the remaining charges related to the riot at Waikeria Prison.

Orders