IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
CRI 2011-070-7718 [2012] NZHC 1751
THE QUEEN
v
MARK ANTHONY RANGIWHAIAO
Hearing: 18 July 2012
Counsel: D J McWilliam for Crown
M G Dixon for Prisoner
Judgment: 18 July 2012
SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Public Defence Service, Tauranga
R V RANGIWHAIAO HC TAU CRI 2011-070-7718 [18 July 2012]
Introduction
[1] Mark Anthony Rangiwhaiao, you have pleaded guilty on arraignment this morning, following a sentence indication, to one count of murder. On that charge you are convicted.
[2] Conviction on that charge brings you within what is called the “three strikes” regime. I am required to give a warning to you. I do so in the words prescribed by Parliament.
[3] Given your conviction for murder, you are now subject to the “three strikes” law. I am now going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences which lists the serious violence offences.
[4] If you are convicted of any serious violence offences other than murder committed after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event, the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.
The facts
[5] Having outlined those matters, I return to the facts of this particular case.
[6] On the evening of 6 December 2011, you were at a gathering at 31 Fourth Avenue, Tauranga. You were there with a number of associates, including the deceased, Colin Bidois. Alcohol was being consumed in the garage.
[7] When a packet of cigarettes and a cellular telephone belonging to one of the occupants at the address went missing from the garage area, a search was begun to
locate them. The packet of cigarettes was found in the deceased’s pocket, as was the cellular telephone. You became agitated with Mr Bidois for stealing these items. You felt it was a personal slight against you.
[8] You grabbed Mr Bidois by the throat and pushed him backwards into a bench inside the garage. You then held him down briefly, while yelling at him for taking the telephone. You then punched the deceased several times to the head and then man-handled him by throwing him to the ground next to a car parked outside the garage. Mr Bidois ended up lying face down on the driveway with his arms extended in front of his face.
[9] At that stage other people tried to prevent you from further attacking the deceased. However, you broke free from those restraints and stomped heavily on his upper back and neck area, as well as the back of his head.
[10] Mr Bidois was helped to his feet…
Continue reading R v Rangiwhaiao
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Rangiwhaiao [2012] NZHC 1751
- Case
- [2012] NZHC 1751
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.