R v Rewha - [2014] NZHC 2636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-013199 [2014] NZHC 2636

THE QUEEN

v

SAMSON BRUCE RINA RAYMOND REWHA

Hearing: 21 October 2014

Counsel:

M J Hammer and M R Walker for the Crown
M E Goodwin for the Prisoner

Sentence:

21 October 2014

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Counsel: M E Goodwin, Auckland

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v REWHA [2014] NZHC 2636 [21 October 2014]

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

Facts

[2] The facts are that on 1 June 2013, a riot took place at Springhill Corrections Facility, which caused significant damage to the correctional facility. The riot occurred in unit 16B, a medium security unit containing two pods. Each pod held 45 prisoners. The riot resulted in damage that required this unit to be demolished and rebuilt at a cost of $5,000,000.

[3] The riot began when two fights broke out between several of the prisoners. The senior corrections officer and three other corrections officers assigned to unit 16B then intervened and attempted to diffuse the situation. When the senior corrections officer returned to the staff base, some of your co-offenders punched and kicked the remaining three corrections officers as they tried to return to the staff base. You were not involved in those assaults.

[4] Riotous damage then took place that lasted several hours. The rioting prisoners fashioned weapons from breaking existing furniture, or material removed from locked storerooms, open cells and from the dining room. Those weapons were used to smash the building and other property within the pods.

[5] The summary of facts includes an extensive list of riotous actions, including setting fire to property and breaking doors and windows. Various items such as toilet paper, clothing and bedding were used to fuel the fires. The only behaviour explicitly attributed to you was that you used a steel pole to smash a CCTV camera. A considerable amount of force was required to break the reinforced protection around the camera.

[6] Matters became extremely serious when the rioters forced through the glass door to the staff base using a volleyball pole. Further, the spread of the fire and

smoke placed prisoners and staff at risk, especially the prisoners that were still detained in their cells.

Personal circumstances

Prior convictions

[7] In terms of your personal circumstances, you are 31 years of age. You have a range of prior convictions. They span between the years of 1998 to 2006 for property, dishonesty and violent offending. I note you have no convictions for intentional damage to property. Most recently in 2008, you were sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery and injury with a firearm. You were serving this sentence at the time of your current offending. The current statutory release date is 24 May 2015.

Pre-sentence report

[8] The pre-sentence report noted that…

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 Rewha

Details

AGLC: R v Rewha [2014] NZHC 2636
Case: [2014] NZHC 2636
Decision Date: 21 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rewha involved a plea of guilty to riotous damage under section 90 of the Crimes Act 1961. The defendant, Rewha, was one of the participants in a riot that took place at Springhill Corrections Facility on 1 June 2013, causing significant damage to the facility. The riot led to the demolition and subsequent rebuild of a medium-security unit at a cost of $5,000,000. Rewha's specific involvement included damaging a CCTV camera with a steel pole, an act that required considerable force. The Crown argued that the sentence should reflect the extensive damage, the duration of the riot, the number of participants, and the risk of injury to prison officers and other prisoners. In contrast, Rewha's counsel emphasised his limited participation and the absence of violence in his actions.

The legal issues before the court were to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, and to apply a discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The court had to balance the need to hold Rewha accountable for his actions against the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. The Crown argued for a starting point of approximately three years, while Rewha's counsel submitted for a starting point of two years. Regarding mitigating factors, the Crown suggested a five percent discount for an early guilty plea, whereas Rewha's counsel sought a twenty-five percent discount for the plea.

The court set the starting point at two years, considering Rewha's limited involvement in the riot and the absence of violence in his actions. The court rejected the Crown's proposal for an uplift in the starting point based on previous convictions, noting that Rewha had no prior convictions for intentional property damage. However, the court accepted an additional five percent discount for an early guilty plea and another five percent for Rewha's attempts to rehabilitate himself. After applying a full twenty-five percent discount for the guilty plea, the court arrived at a sentence of 16 months imprisonment. Finally, considering the principle of totality, the court applied a ten percent discount, resulting in a final sentence of 14 months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with Rewha's existing sentence.

Orders