R v Reid
[2022] NZHC 2440
•23 September 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI 2020-063-2105
[2022] NZHC 2440
THE KING v
KRISTINA REID
Hearing: 23 September 2022 Appearances:
A McConachy for the Crown M Jenkins for the defendant
Judgment:
23 September 2022
JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J
R v REID [2022] NZHC 2440 [23 September 2022]
Introduction
[1] Ms Reid, on 13 July 2022 you pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping1 and one charge of participation in an organised criminal group.2 My job today, on behalf of the community, is to impose a sentence on you for those offences in accordance with law.
[2] When you pleaded guilty, you accepted a sentence indication I had earlier given you on 30 June 2022.3 I will attach my sentence indication to my sentencing notes and that indication forms part of them.
[3] My indication was a sentence of imprisonment for two years and seven months. However, I indicated that that sentence might be reduced to take into account two other matters: the time you had spent on EM bail, and personal mitigating factors. Those two matters are addressed in my sentencing today.
Offending
[4]I will briefly outline the agreed facts, as relevant to you.
[5] There were two separate kidnappings of the victim. You were involved in only the second kidnapping.
[6] You are a cousin of the victim. At the time of the offending, you were in a relationship with one of your co-offenders, Shaun Te Kiri. Mr Te Kiri is a relative of the lead offender in this matter, Ricky-Lee Dixon.
[7] In late August 2020, Ms Dixon accused the victim of stealing some methamphetamine from her. Ms Dixon said the victim owed her.
[8] On 21 October 2020, multiple messages were sent from your Facebook Messenger account to the victim. As a result of those messages, the victim agreed to meet with you at some shops in Rotorua. The Crown acknowledges that
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 209(a) and 66(1). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 98A. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
3 R v Reid [2022] NZHC 1542.
who sent the messages from your phone is unknown, but that Ms Dixon informed the victim that she was using your phone at the time.
[9] The victim arrived at the shops. Ms Dixon and another co-offender, Desmond Ohlson, accosted the victim and took her to a nearby car.
[10] The victim was then driven to a property in Fordblock. She was then moved into a different car and driven to the Vault Bar on Hinemoa Street. She was then driven to a Fordblock property again. At that property, you entered the picture. You and Mr Te Kiri accompanied the group back to the Vault Bar.
[11] At the Vault Bar, the car was parked on Hinemoa Street. You and some associates remained in the car with the victim in the back seat. The victim was not allowed to leave the car. She had her mobile phone and bag taken from her.
[12] At around 5.45 pm, you took the victim to the toilet. You walked across the road into the Vault Bar, remaining behind her at all times. You went into an individual stall in the bathroom with the victim. Once she was finished, you returned with her to the rear seat of the car.
[13] At about 7.30 pm, Ms Dixon and her associates drove the victim around Fordblock. They dropped you off at a property. At around 8 pm, the victim was taken to the Kowhai and Colonial Motel. At 8.10 pm, you were seen entering that motel. It is not known when you left.
[14] The next morning, the victim was subjected to a sustained beating at the motel. However, you were not in the motel room at that time.
Impact on the victim
[15] The victim has provided a victim impact statement, which I have read and Ms McConachy read it to the Court this morning. The victim planned to be in court this morning but unfortunately is unwell and was unable to attend. The victim describes the serious and ongoing physical, financial and emotional effects of your offending (and of the other kidnapping in which you were not involved). Unsurprisingly, she
remains deeply affected by your offending. She has had to move away from Rotorua to feel safe. She should never have had to have done that.
[16] The victim impact statement is detailed and eloquent. The victim concludes by saying that she wants you to know that she will forgive you. That shows remarkable generosity. It is a gift from which I hope you learn, Ms Reid.
My sentence indication
[17] In my sentence indication, I found there were several aggravating features of your offending. However, I accepted that your role was limited in time and degree. It was among the lowest of those involved in the two kidnappings of the victim. I considered a starting point of three years’ imprisonment was appropriate.
[18] From that starting point, the only change I made was a five-month allowance for an early guilty plea if you accepted the indication. This resulted in the indication of two years and seven months’ imprisonment.
[19] I now turn to consider the two matters that might lead to further allowances against that sentence indication.
Allowance for time on EM bail
[20] In sentencing you, I must take into account that you have been on EM bail for just over 13 months.4 Over that time, you were granted one recurring variation and five one-off variations. You breached your bail conditions on three occasions, but those breaches were minor, and you were readmitted to bail by consent on each occasion. Mr Jenkins says that your bail conditions were restrictive, and that your compliance with your bail terms over such a long period justifies substantial credit being given, namely nine months.5
4 Sentencing Act, ss 9(2)(h) and (3A).
5 Paora v R [2021] NZCA 559 at [62].
[21] I accept Mr Jenkins’ submissions, except that your conditions were not as restrictive as those in the case on which he relies. I am prepared to make an allowance of eight months, which is a little over half of the time you spent on EM bail.
Allowance for personal mitigating factors
[22] I also have to allow for any personal mitigating factors. These include your background, as that is relevant to your overall culpability.
[23] I have reviewed your pre-sentence report. There has been no other report filed on your behalf. The pre-sentence report describes your reported significant history of family dysfunction. Your mother was distant and your father a gang member. You were a victim of violence at a young age. It is not surprising that with this background you left school at 13 and eventually spiralled into heavy alcohol and drug use and depression. You became estranged from family. The report also states that you were the victim of family harm incidents in early 2020 involving Mr Te Kiri, who at that time was your only form of support. Mr Te Kiri, as I have said, was your co-offender in this proceeding.
[24] The report writer says your past traumas and lack of support, coupled with other difficulties, offer some insight into why you were unwilling or unable to evaluate the situation that led to your part in the offending against the victim.
[25] The report writer also says that you accepted your role in the offending and expressed genuine remorse for it, being tearful when describing it. You also expressed a willingness for counselling and rehabilitation in respect of your substance abuse issues. And as I have said to Mr Jenkins this morning, that is also evident from some of the work that you have been doing whilst on EM bail. Mr Jenkins says you also attempted to initiate a restorative justice process.
[26] I am satisfied there is a clear linkage between your personal circumstances and your offending, serving to diminish your moral culpability.6 In my view this is appropriately taken into account by an allowance of 15 per cent against the starting
6 Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453, [2019] 2 NZLR 241 at [63].
point. I also make an allowance of five per cent for the remorse that you have shown, your attempt to undertake restorative justice and your willingness towards counselling and rehabilitation.
End sentence
[27] I take a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. Against that I make allowances of five months for your guilty plea, eight months for your time spent on EM bail, 15 per cent for your background, and five per cent for remorse and related factors.7 This produces an end sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment.
[28] Ms Reid, that is what is known as a short-term sentence.8 It is therefore open to me to consider home detention as a sentencing option. In this case I consider it is the appropriate sentencing option. Your offending was very serious, and deserves to be deterred and denounced. A sentence of home detention achieves those purposes.9 Your willingness to engage in rehabilitation also supports home detention as a sentence. And Ms McConachy said that if I came to the calculation of a short-term sentence, the Crown did not oppose home detention.
[29] Home detention periods are commonly calculated by halving the end sentence of imprisonment that otherwise would have been imposed. I will follow that practice here, except for a small upwards adjustment to reflect that imprisonment is more onerous than home detention.10 This gives nine months. I also have to allow for the time that you spent in custody,11 which was two months in total. The end sentence is therefore seven months’ home detention.
Result
[30]Ms Reid, for your conviction on the charge of kidnapping, I sentence you to
seven months’ home detention. For your conviction on the charge of participation
7 The percentage allowances are calculated against the starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment.
8 Sentencing Act 2002, s 4.
9 R v Iosefa [2008] NZCA 453.
10 R v Bisschop [2008] NZCA 229 at [19].
11 Harris v Police [2022] NZHC 345.
in an organised criminal group, I sentence you to seven months’ home detention.
These sentences are to be served concurrently.
[31] Your home detention address is [Redacted]. I record that Mr Jenkins advises me that you may in due course have to apply for a variation of this address, but for now it is available and suitable, as it is the same residence where you have been on EM bail for 13 months. Ms Tahana, who has been in the back of the court this morning, who runs the programme that you have been involved in, has confirmed that.
[32] In addition to the standard conditions of home detention, a number of other conditions have been proposed to address in particular some of the issues that have led to your offending. I am of the view that there is a significant risk of you re-offending if you do not continue to take the steps to address the causes of your offending that you have been taking whilst on EM bail. For that reason, I impose the following special conditions which I discussed with counsel this morning:
(a)To attend and complete an appropriate alcohol and drug programme to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and the programme provider;
(b)To undertake and complete such counselling/programmes/treatment to address identified offending behaviour as may be directed by the Probation Officer and to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and programme provider;
(c)To submit to electronic monitoring as directed by a Probation Officer in order to monitor your compliance with any conditions relating to your whereabouts;
(d)To complete with the requirements of electronic monitoring and provide unimpeded access to your approved residence by a Probation Officer and/or representatives of the monitoring company for the purpose of maintaining the electronic monitoring equipment as directed by a Probation Officer;
(e)You are not to associate with or contact the victims of your offending without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.
[33] Ms Paul, the Probation Officer who has been in Court this morning, also proposed that the five conditions that I have set out apply as post detention conditions. Counsel agreed that was appropriate, as do I. I therefore impose them as post- detention conditions for six months.
[34]Ms Reid, please stand down.
Campbell J
3
3
0