R v Peters - [2016] NZHC 2331

THIS IS A REDACTED VERSION OF THE JUDGMENT. PARAGRAPHS [17], [18], [21] AND [22] HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF PARAGRAPHS [17], [18], [21] AND [22] CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-7255 [2016] NZHC 2331

THE QUEEN

v

ANTHONY KEVIN PETERS

Hearing: 30 September 2016

Appearances:

B Hawes for Crown
P Hall QC for Defendant

Judgment:

30 September 2016

SENTENCTING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Anthony Peters you are for sentence this morning on a charge of kidnapping which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Given your conviction on that charge, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am required by the Sentencing Act to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice which contains a list of these “serious violent offences”.

[2] If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offence other than murder committed after this warning and if the Judge imposes a sentence of
imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

R v PETERS [2016] NZHC 2331 [30 September 2016]

[3] If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event, the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[4] Mr Peters, you pleaded guilty to the charge of kidnapping after I provided a sentence indication at your request. When I providing the sentence indication to you, I canvassed in some detail relevant matters that I needed to take into account in assessing the appropriate sentence. In passing sentence on you this morning it is necessary for me to again traverse those relevant factors.

Factual background

[5] I must first set out the factual background to the offending. This will include your particular involvement and your own evidence about that.

[6] The offending was clearly gang related. The victim, Mr Dawson Reihana, had an association with the Mongrel Mob. Your co-offenders, as with yourself, were or are either members, associates or affiliates of that group.

[7] On 8 August last year, Mr Reihana was invited to an address of one of your co-offenders in Ajax Street. That invitation was a trap. Mr Reihana was attacked by three people and other unidentified associates. The attack involved him being struck with hammers to his head and knees. His hands and feet were bound and the beating continued while he was in that defenceless position.

[8] A decision was made to take Mr Reihana to a different address. A gag was placed in his mouth and a rope tied around his legs. Mr Reihana was placed in the back of a van. You drove that van to the Ajax Street address. You maintain you were directed to do so unaware of what had…

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 Peters

Details

AGLC: R v Peters [2016] NZHC 2331
Case: [2016] NZHC 2331
Decision Date: 30 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Peters, the defendant, Anthony Peters, faced sentencing for the offence of kidnapping, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge after receiving a sentence indication from the court. The court had to consider the nature of the crime, the defendant's involvement, and his background, including his affiliation with the Mongrel Mob gang. The victim, Mr Dawson Reihana, was subjected to a prolonged and violent attack orchestrated by the gang, with Peters playing a limited role in transporting the victim. Despite his limited involvement, Peters was subject to the three strikes law, which mandates life imprisonment without parole for a third serious violent offence conviction. The court acknowledged Peters' duress and lack of direct involvement in the violence but considered his ongoing gang affiliation and failure to cooperate with authorities as mitigating factors.

The legal issues in this case revolved around determining the appropriate sentence for Peters, taking into account his limited direct involvement in the violence, his status under duress, and the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the gang-related nature and the severity of the violence inflicted on the victim. The court also had to assess the relevance of Peters' previous criminal history and his efforts towards rehabilitation. The primary challenge was balancing the mitigating factors of duress and limited participation against the serious nature of the crime and the defendant's gang affiliations.

The court reasoned that while Peters did not physically assault the victim, his role in transporting the victim facilitated the crime, making him culpable. The court accepted that Peters acted under duress but noted that his reluctance to cooperate with the police and his ongoing gang involvement were significant factors. The court applied a starting point of three and a half years imprisonment, considering the circumstances of the offence and Peters' role. Various mitigating factors, including his guilty plea, time spent on electronic monitoring bail, and expressed remorse, were considered. However, the court decided that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, and after applying all relevant deductions and reductions, Peters was sentenced to two years and two months imprisonment.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Anthony Peters to two years and two months imprisonment for the offence of kidnapping, taking into account his limited involvement in the violence, his status under duress, and the mitigating factors presented. The court emphasised the seriousness of the crime and the need to deter future offences, while also considering Peters' efforts towards rehabilitation and his circumstances under duress.

Orders