R v Raroa - [2012] NZHC 1280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2011-082-0360

CRI-2011-041-1871 [2012] NZHC 1280

THE QUEEN

v

RIKI JOHN RAROA

Hearing: 8 June 2012

Counsel: C R Walker and F Cleary for Crown
A Malik for Prisoner

Judgment: 8 June 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R V RIKI JOHN RAROA HC GIS CRI-2011-082-0360 [8 June 2012]

[1] Mr Riki Raroa, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and participating in an organised criminal group. The maximum penalties for those offences are sentences of 14 and ten years imprisonment respectively.

Factual background

[2] In order to understand the issues that your sentencing raises, it is necessary to set out the factual background in some detail.

[3] You have been a long term member of the Mongrel Mob. You live in Nuhaka, but at your trial it became plain that you also have a considerable amount to do with the activities of the Mongrel Mob in Wairoa.

[4] In August 2010 a major event occurred at the Mongrel Mob pad in Wairoa. It involved an internal dispute between members of the Wairoa Mongrel Mob. Ultimately, the two factions decided to sort out their differences by way of a major confrontation involving firearms. In that confrontation, no fewer than 26 shots were fired. This led to the police arresting a very large number of Mongrel Mob members and it effectively meant that very few Mongrel Mob members were left in Wairoa. It seems that this resulted in you assuming, or accepting, responsibility to undertake a caretaker role to preserve the assets of the Wairoa Mongrel Mob. In particular, you seem to have assumed responsibility for ensuring that the Mongrel Mob headquarters, or pad, in Wairoa was manned and thereby protected from interference by others.

[5] This was no doubt important to you because the Mongrel Mob in Wairoa has been involved in a longstanding feud with the Black Power gang. This has resulted in numerous incidents of violence over the years. The incidents that gave rise to the present charges form just one chapter in the hostilities between the Mongrel Mob and the Black Power gangs.

[6] An incident occurred on the weekend of 23 - 24 October 2010. It seems that a Mongrel Mob member went to a function hosted by Black Power. There he stole a

motor vehicle and drove it back to the Mongrel Mob headquarters. Even if it was not calculated to do so, this act would undoubtedly have been seen by Black Power as an act of provocation by the Mongrel Mob.

[7] The Mongrel Mob were well aware of this, because from the evening of Sunday night onwards, you placed them on “red alert”. This meant that members of the gang, including your son Cleveland, were required to be at the pad each night to ensure that it was protected from invasion by Black Power.

[8] At your trial…

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 Raroa

Details

AGLC: R v Raroa [2012] NZHC 1280
Case: [2012] NZHC 1280
Decision Date: 8 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Raroa, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Riki John Raroa, a long-term member of the Mongrel Mob gang, found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and participating in an organised criminal group. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the seriousness of the offences and Raroa's culpability. The court established that Raroa had arranged for firearms to be kept at the gang's premises, knowing the risk of serious harm to others. The starting point for the charge of causing grievous bodily harm was set at nine and a half years, slightly lower than comparable cases due to Raroa's role in arming the premises rather than actively seeking trouble. For the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, the starting point was set at five years. After considering the totality principle, aggravating and mitigating factors, the court sentenced Raroa to ten and a half years for grievous bodily harm and five years for the organised criminal group charge, to be served concurrently, with no requirement for a minimum term of imprisonment.

Orders