R v Reid - [2022] NZHC 1990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2021-070-1899

[2022] NZHC 1990

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM REID

Hearing: 12 August 2022

Appearances:

S Teki-Clark for Crown R Adams for Defendant

Judgment:

12 August 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

R v REID [2022] NZHC 1990 [12 August 2022]

[1] Mr Reid, you appear for sentence today having entered a guilty plea to a charge of aggravated burglary.1 That charge carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Background

[2] You entered your guilty plea immediately after I gave you a sentence indication on 2 June 2022.2 This was shortly before your trial was to commence. I gave the sentence indication on the basis of an agreed summary of facts, and I need to reiterate some of the points made in that summary for sentencing purposes today. I do so even though the facts are set out in the notes of my sentence indication, which I will annex to these remarks. One of the victims of your offending is present today and she has not heard how I arrived at the indicated sentence. It is important that she understands how this was done.

[3] The summary of facts records that the offending had its origins in the fact that the male victim, to whom I shall refer as A, had allowed another person to store a caravan and bus on a rural property in the Bay of Plenty. A and his partner conducted a firewood business from that property. The summary records that the owner of the bus and caravan had been attempting to regain possession of his items, but difficulties had arisen. That person then contacted persons associated with the Rangitikei chapter of the Rebels Motorcycle Club. He asked those persons to assist him to recover his bus and caravan from A’s property. You were recruited to assist in this task.

[4] On 25 January 2021 you travelled with four others in a motor vehicle from Hunterville to the Bay of Plenty. At about 9 am you were captured on CCTV footage at a service station in Rotorua. Your vehicle then carried on to Tauranga, where you met with two females who had travelled from Auckland in another vehicle. Both vehicles were then captured on CCTV film footage travelling in convoy towards A’s property.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a).
2 R v Reid [2022] NZHC 1292.

[5] The two vehicles got to the address at about 10.30 am. You and your associates entered the property by opening a gate. The two females then remained in the vicinity of the gate while you and your associates drove up to the accommodation block on the property. You and your associates then got out of your vehicle and approached A, who was splitting firewood with his nephew. One of the group was armed with a baseball bat. You and your group began saying “You owe us, you…

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 1990
Case: [2022] NZHC 1990
Decision Date: 12 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, William Reid was sentenced for a charge of aggravated burglary. Reid and five others had travelled to Tauranga to recover a bus and a caravan stored on a rural property owned by a man referred to as A. The group of men violently assaulted A and his nephew, while two females assaulted A’s partner and attempted to steal vehicles from the property. The attack left A with significant injuries including facial fractures, a punctured muscle, and multiple cuts and bruises. A’s partner and nephew also suffered significant injuries. The court determined a starting point of nine years imprisonment, considering the premeditation and use of weapons. After applying discounts for a guilty plea and mitigating factors such as Reid’s troubled background and expressed remorse, the final sentence was six years and four months imprisonment.

The legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point and sentence for aggravated burglary, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considered the premeditation, use of weapons, significant injuries inflicted, and Reid’s background and expressions of remorse. After applying discounts for a guilty plea and mitigating factors, the court arrived at a final sentence of six years and four months imprisonment. This decision balanced the severity of the crime with the circumstances of the offender.

Orders