R v Rewi - [2012] NZHC 1410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2010-054-004921 [2012] NZHC 1410

THE QUEEN

v

HOANI STEPHEN REWI

Hearing: 20 June 2012

Counsel: E C Killeen for Crown
T C Thackery for Prisoner

Sentence: 20 June 2012

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Rewi, you appear for sentence on one charge of blackmail under the

Crimes Act 1961,[1] for which you pleaded guilty.

Sentencing indication

[1] Crimes Act 1961, ss 237(1) and 238.

[2] On 6 March 2012, Gendall J gave you a sentencing indication pursuant to the

Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[3] Gendall J considered that a starting point of three and a half years’

imprisonment for the blackmail charge was appropriate. He then uplifted that

R V REWI HC PMN CRI-2010-054-004921 [20 June 2012]

starting point by six months to take into account that the offending occurred while you were on bail, and then uplifted it a further six months to take into account your previous convictions. He then discounted that by 12 per cent to take account of your guilty plea which he considered came at a “very late stage”. Gendall J indicated that if you pleaded guilty to the blackmail charge, you would face a sentence of three years and eleven months’ imprisonment.

[4] In sentencing you today, the sentencing indication of Gendall J is not binding on me. I will now describe the circumstances of your offending, your personal circumstances and set out my reasons for reaching a slightly different conclusion to that indicated by Gendall J.

Circumstances of your offending

[5] On 4 April 2011, a commercial business started operating from a site in Palmerston North. On 6 April 2011, you entered the business. You were wearing a Black Power Forever patch.

[6] You engaged in conversation with the owner of the business, the complainant. You advised the complainant that you were connected with another business in the area and that you believed the complainant’s business would interfere with that. You said that you “ran” Highbury, and that if the complainant wanted to carry on business, he had to pay you $1,500. You said that if he failed to pay you, then you would come around the business with other persons and smash the house over. You left after about ten minutes, but made the complainant give you his cell phone number.

[7] Later that day, you sent a text to an associate saying that you had just “stood

over” the shop down the road.

[8] The following day, you contacted the complainant on his cell phone. You said that you knew where he lived and then described his residential address. You issued a further demand to the complainant, accompanied by another threat. You

said “... everyone knows who I am and how I operate (so) you either pay up or you and your family get fucked up”.

[9] As a result of your threats, the complainant closed his business, changed his phone number, went into hiding and began…

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 Rewi

Details

AGLC: R v Rewi [2012] NZHC 1410
Case: [2012] NZHC 1410
Decision Date: 20 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry, the case of the Queen versus Hoani Stephen Rewi was heard for sentencing on 20 June 2012. Rewi had pleaded guilty to a charge of blackmail under the Crimes Act 1961, which he committed on 6 April 2011. The primary legal issues that the court needed to decide were the appropriate starting point for sentencing, whether any uplifts were necessary, and the extent of any discount for the guilty plea. The court also needed to consider the circumstances of the offending, the offender's personal circumstances, and the impact on the victim.

The court considered that a starting point of three years' imprisonment was appropriate for the blackmail charge, taking into account the nature of the threats and demands, the effect on the victim, and the absence of a prior relationship between the offender and the victim. The court then decided to uplift the starting point by six months due to the offender's previous convictions, and a further six months as the offending occurred while the offender was on bail. The court agreed with the previous sentencing indication that a 12.5 per cent discount was appropriate for the guilty plea, which amounted to a six-month reduction.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Rewi to a term of three years and six months' imprisonment for the blackmail charge, to which he had pleaded guilty. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the circumstances of the offending, the offender's personal background, and the impact on the victim, as well as the appropriate principles of sentencing for blackmail offences.

Orders