R v Ratu - [2015] NZHC 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-13119 [2015] NZHC 79

THE QUEEN

v

MATTHEW ROSS RATU

Hearing: 5 February 2015

Appearances:

M R Walker for Crown
M J Dyhrberg QC for Defendant

Sentence:

5 February 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v MATTHEW ROSS RATU [2015] NZHC 79 [5 February 2015]

[1] Mr Ratu, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charge of causing riotous damage under s 90 of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment.

Background

[2] The charge to which you pleaded guilty was laid after you participated in a riot that occurred at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility on the weekend of 1 June
2013. This caused significant damage to one area of the facility that has required about $5 million to repair.

[3] The riot occurred in Unit 16B, which is a medium security unit. It contained two pods, each of which held 45 prisoners. You were being held in one of those pods.

[4] The riot began when prisoners were released from their pods for morning exercise. At that point corrections officers noted that some of them appeared to be intoxicated. Disorderly behaviour then ensued, and some inmates began fighting each other. When prison officers moved to defuse the situation, the matter quickly escalated. A large group of prisoners then began grabbing items of furniture and other items to use as weapons. Over a period of several hours this group of prisoners then caused a very significant amount of damage to prison property by smashing it using implements, and by burning it in a fire they started in the yard.

[5] The prisoners entered several areas of the prison, including the pod dining room, activities room and a staff base. Inside those areas, they smashed items of furniture and equipment. They removed files and set fire to them in the yard. You were a full participant in those activities, but you have not been charged with arson. I therefore proceed on the basis that the Crown accepts you were not one of the ringleaders who began the fires that caused so much damage.

[6] The role that you played in events is described in a global summary of facts prepared in respect of charges faced by all of the participants in the riot. This says that you and two others used an object to hit the staff base door and windows. You and several others then collected items from around the compound including

furniture, appliances, clothing and toilet paper. You added these to fires that had already been lit in the centre of the compound. You and two others then climbed in and out of the staff base window carrying TVs and keyboards and throwing them out into the pod. You also took files from the staff base. You then entered an activity room armed with a pole and walked directly towards a window. You smashed the pole twice against the…

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 Ratu

Details

AGLC: R v Ratu [2015] NZHC 79
Case: [2015] NZHC 79
Decision Date: 5 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ratu before the High Court of New Zealand involved Matthew Ross Ratu, who was charged with causing riotous damage under s 90 of the Crimes Act 1961. Ratu participated in a riot at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility on 1 June 2013, which caused significant damage to the facility estimated at around $5 million. The riot resulted in substantial damage to the prison property by smashing and burning items. Ratu was a full participant in the riot, though not one of the ringleaders or arsonists.

The primary legal issues in the case were the determination of an appropriate starting point for the sentence and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court had to decide whether to apply an uplift for Ratu's previous convictions and the extent to which mitigating factors such as his restrictive bail conditions, the saving of trial costs, and his remorse should reduce his sentence. The court also had to consider whether the sentence should be cumulative with another sentence Ratu was serving for a separate offence.

The court reasoned that an appropriate starting point for the sentence was three years three months imprisonment, considering the precedents set by other judges in similar cases. The court decided to apply a modest uplift of three months for Ratu's previous convictions for wilful damage. For mitigating factors, the court granted a discount of three months for Ratu's six months under restrictive bail conditions and two months for saving the State the cost of a trial. Although acknowledging Ratu's remorse, the court did not provide an additional discount for it, considering his previous convictions and the timing of his guilty plea. The court further reduced the sentence by eight months to reflect the guilty plea, resulting in a total sentence of two years five months imprisonment. The court decided to impose this sentence cumulatively with Ratu's existing sentence.

Orders