R v Reid - [2022] NZHC 2440

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…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2022] NZHC 2440
Case: [2022] NZHC 2440
Decision Date: 23 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid involved the defendant, Kristina Reid, who pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and participation in an organised criminal group. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these offences in accordance with the law. The legal issues at hand included assessing the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering any allowances for factors such as time spent on electronic monitoring bail, and evaluating personal mitigating factors that might reduce the culpability of the defendant.

The court began by acknowledging the serious nature of the offences and the impact on the victim, who had suffered significant physical, financial, and emotional harm as a result. The judge found several aggravating features in the offending, but also recognised the limited role of the defendant in the events. A starting point of three years' imprisonment was deemed appropriate, with a reduction of five months for the defendant's early guilty plea. Further reductions were considered for time spent on electronic monitoring bail and personal mitigating factors, including the defendant's background of family dysfunction, history of victimisation, and substance abuse issues. The court concluded that these factors warranted a substantial reduction in the sentence.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Kristina Reid to seven months' home detention for each charge, to be served concurrently. This decision was made considering the serious nature of the offending, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the defendant's willingness to engage in rehabilitation. Special conditions were imposed to address the causes of the offending, including participation in alcohol and drug programs, counselling, and restrictions on contact with the victims. These conditions were also set to apply post-detention for six months.

Orders