R v Ranapia - [2023] NZHC 2561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-419-000026

[2023] NZHC 2561

THE KING

v

CHRISTOPHER RANAPIA

Hearing: 13 September 2023

Appearances:

R Mann for the Crown

G Prentice and R Brown for Mr Ranapia

Sentencing:

13 September 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Counsel: G Prentice, Barrister, Hamilton
R Brown, Barrister, Hamilton

R v RANAPIA [2023] NZHC 2561 [13 September 2023]

[1] Mr Ranapia, 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 in part an amalgamation of charges in the Crown Charge Notice dated 28 June 2022.

Factual background

[3] At the time you pleaded guilty you accepted the contents of a Summary of Facts dated 13 March 2023. 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 Beau-James Paul who, like you, pleaded guilty to the same three charges during the trial.4

[4] You were in custody 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.

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 Paul [2023] NZHC 1985.

[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. They damaged property in the yard. They lit fires on top of the wooden seats and structures inside the yard. Efforts made by Corrections officers and firefighters to extinguish the fires were thwarted by members of the group of nine shielding the fires with their bodies…

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 Ranapia

Details

AGLC: R v Ranapia [2023] NZHC 2561
Case: [2023] NZHC 2561
Decision Date: 13 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ranapia involves the defendant, Christopher Ranapia, who pleaded guilty to three charges related to a riot at Waikeria Prison in New Zealand over the New Year 2020/2021 period. The charges included arson with a danger to life, riotous damage, and assault with a weapon. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for these crimes, taking into account various factors such as the defendant's background, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court involved establishing an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court had to weigh the severity of the crimes, the defendant's criminal history, and personal circumstances such as his upbringing and mental health. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate discounts for the defendant's guilty plea, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation, as well as the time he had already spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail.

The court adopted a global starting point of nine years and six months’ imprisonment, considering the seriousness of the arson charge and the other two related charges. After applying various discounts for the defendant's guilty plea, his personal background, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation, the starting point was reduced by 30 per cent, resulting in a sentence of six years and seven months. Further reduction of nine months was made for the time spent on EM bail, bringing the final sentence to five years and 10 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Christopher Ranapia be sentenced to five years and 10 months’ imprisonment for the charge of arson with a danger to life, and five years’ imprisonment for each of the other two charges, all to be served concurrently. He was also discharged under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the remaining charges related to the riot.

Orders