R v Rawhiti - [2022] NZHC 2680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2022-083-746

[2022] NZHC 2680

THE KING

v

TAMA RAWHITI

Hearing: 17 October 2022

Counsel:

M Wilkinson-Smith for the Crown J H Waugh for Mr Rawhiti

Sentencing:

17 October 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Rawhiti, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)Using a firearm against police;1

(b)Unlawful possession of a firearm;2

(c)Unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;3

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 198A(1) carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1) carries a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of
$5,000.
3      Crimes Act, s 226 carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v RAWHITI [2022] NZHC 2680 [17 October 2022]

(d)Unauthorised use of a communication device;4 and

(e)Demanding with intent to steal.5

[2] In sentencing you today, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The main purposes of sentencing in your case are to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused through your offending; to promote a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgment of, that harm; to denounce and deter the criminal conduct; to protect the public; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.6 What that means in practice is that I have to look at the whole situation and do what I can to mark what you have done, but also to acknowledge who you are and your particular circumstances and background.

[3] In sentencing you, I will first say something about your offending, explain your personal circumstances, and set out counsel’s submissions. I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I set a starting point based on the offences you have pleaded guilty to; and second, I will consider whether to apply any increases (uplifts) and discounts to reflect your personal aggravating and mitigating factors.

[4] Because sentencing is a public process, I have to talk about the detail of what happened.

The offending

[5] In July 2019 you had been released from prison on parole. One of the conditions of your release was that you would wear an electronic monitoring (EM) bracelet. In August 2019, you removed your EM bracelet. This led to a prison recall warrant being issued for you, but you managed to avoid arrest for six weeks through the help of your associates. It is during this time that the offending for which you are being sentenced today took place.

4      Communications Act 2004, s 141A(1) carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $5,000.
5      Crimes Act, ss 239(2) and 66 carry a maximum penalty of six years’ imprisonment.
6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.

[6] In the afternoon of 16 September 2019, you and two associates followed a vehicle into a carpark, believing that the vehicle had been stolen from one of…

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 Rawhiti

Details

AGLC: R v Rawhiti [2022] NZHC 2680
Case: [2022] NZHC 2680
Decision Date: 17 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rawhiti is a criminal matter heard by Gwyn J in the High Court of New Zealand, Whanganui Registry. The defendant, Tama Rawhiti, pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including using a firearm against police, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, unauthorised use of a communication device, and demanding with intent to steal. The court applied the Sentencing Act 2002 to determine the appropriate sentence for Rawhiti, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing. These include holding the offender accountable for their actions, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing and deterring criminal conduct, protecting the public, and assisting in the offender's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Gwyn J first discussed the details of the offending, which involved Rawhiti and his associates following a vehicle they believed to have been stolen, pointing a gun at police during a breath test, taking a police car and crashing it, and using an authorised phone call to question a third party. The court also considered personal circumstances, including Rawhiti's extensive criminal history, difficult childhood, and desire to change his lifestyle. Submissions from both the Crown and Rawhiti's lawyer were taken into account when determining an appropriate starting point and any increases or discounts for aggravating and mitigating factors.

After considering all factors, Gwyn J determined a starting point of four years' imprisonment for Rawhiti's offending. This was uplifted by six months to account for his previous convictions, discounted by 20% for his guilty plea, and a further 15% for personal mitigating factors, resulting in an end sentence of three years and one month. Rawhiti was also convicted and discharged for the unauthorised use of a communication device charge. Gwyn J directed that the psychological and cultural reports be released to the probation service to assist in determining appropriate conditions for Rawhiti's sentence.

Orders