R v Rangitoheriri - [2018] NZHC 2355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-044-004671

[2018] NZHC 2355

THE QUEEN

v

MOREHU RANGITOHERIRI

Hearing: 7 September 2018

Appearances:

E L Woolley for the Crown J N Olsen for the Defendant

Sentence:

7 September 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
J Munro/J N Olsen, Auckland

R v RANGITOHERIRI [2018] NZHC 2355 [7 September 2018]

[1] Mr Rangitoheriri – you appear today having pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, pursuant to s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for that offence is one of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] You had earlier asked for a sentence indication. That indication was given to you on 24 July 2018.1 You accepted the indication and pleaded guilty shortly after the indication was given.

[3] The offence to which you have pleaded guilty is a qualifying offence under the three strikes provisions contained in the Sentencing Act 2002.2 You have already received a first strike warning. It was entered on 13 April 2017. You received a second strike warning upon entry of the conviction on your recent plea, warning you of the consequences of committing a further qualifying offence.3 As you were told in the course of the sentence indication, at sentencing you must be ordered to serve the full term of the sentence imposed without parole (in the case of a long-term sentence), or without release before the expiry of the sentence (in the case of a short-term sentence).4 If the Court would have otherwise ordered a minimum period of imprisonment, the Court must also state, with reasons, the period that it would have imposed.5

Relevant facts

[4] You were charged along with four other persons. All are sentenced prisoners, being at the relevant time held in the maximum-security unit at Auckland Prison at Paremoremo.

[5] The victim – Toka Vercoe – was also a sentenced prisoner, being held in the maximum-security unit.

[6] You and one of your co-defendants are patched members of the Black Power gang. Two of your other co-defendants are members of the Crips gang and the fifth co-defendant is a member of the Killer Beez gang.

1      R v Rangitoheriri [2018] NZHC 1851.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86A.
3      Section 86C(1)(a).
4      Section 86C(4).
5      Section 86C(6).

[7] Mr Vercoe is a member of the Mongrel Mob gang. There is considerable tension between the Mongrel Mob gang and the Black Power and Crips gangs.

[8] You, your co-defendants and Mr Vercoe were all housed on the same landing in the top west upper section of the Bravo block at Auckland Prison. There are 12 cells on the landing. Given your and your co-defendants’ security classification, under unit procedures, only six cells on the landing were unlocked at any one time. During this unlock period, the prisoners from the six cells could roam freely along the landing.

[9] On the day…

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 Rangitoheriri

Details

AGLC: R v Rangitoheriri [2018] NZHC 2355
Case: [2018] NZHC 2355
Decision Date: 7 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morehu Rangitoheriri was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, pursuant to s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002, as well as the aggravating and mitigating features of the case. The court also needed to decide on the impact of the three strikes provisions and the principle of totality in sentencing.

The court identified multiple aggravating features, including significant violence, premeditation, serious injuries to the victim, use of weapons, targeting of the head, multiple attackers, and gang-related motivations. There were no mitigating factors. Based on these considerations and relevant case law, the court determined that the offending fell into the most serious category, warranting a starting point of nine years’ imprisonment. The court increased the starting point to 10 years, considering Rangitoheriri’s extensive history of violent offending and his current imprisonment for a similar crime. Rangitoheriri received a 25% discount for his guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of seven years and six months. Considering the principle of totality, the court set the sentence for the recent offence at four years and eight months, cumulative with his existing sentence, leading to a total of 14 years’ imprisonment. The court also stated that but for the three strikes regime, the minimum period of imprisonment would be two years and four months.

Orders