R v Rewiri - [2023] NZHC 2954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2021-070-4281

[2023] NZHC 2954

THE KING

v

ADRIAN REWIRI

Hearing: 20 October 2023

Appearances:

R W Jenson for Crown Q Duff for Defendant

Sentence:

20 October 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga Q Duff, Auckland

R v REWIRI [2023] NZHC 2954 [20 October 2023]

[1] Mr Rewiri, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of being an accessory after the fact to murder.1 The maximum penalty for that charge is seven years imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] The facts on which you are to be sentenced are to be drawn from the evidence given at trial. This will require me to make one finding of fact that influences the starting point to be adopted for the sentence to be imposed on you. As trial Judge, I am entitled to make my own factual findings provided they are not inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.

[3] At approximately 10 pm on the evening of 11 February 2018, Mr David Kuka was shot and killed at the address at which he lived in Tauranga. The person who has pleaded guilty to murdering Mr Kuka, Mr Dane Pukepuke, had travelled to Tauranga from Rotorua earlier in the day. Approximately two hours before the shooting took place Mr Pukepuke obtained a Ford motor vehicle that he used to travel to the address where he shot Mr Kuka.

[4] The Crown alleged at trial that you were the person who arranged for Mr Pukepuke to be provided with this motor vehicle. I accept that this is the case based on the evidence given at trial but nothing turns on it for present purposes because the jury concluded that you were not a party to Mr Kuka’s murder. The jury’s verdict on this charge reflects their conclusion that they could not be sure that you knew what Mr Pukepuke was going to do at the time you arranged for him to be provided with the vehicle. The acts for which you are to be sentenced commenced after the shooting had occurred when the vehicle was returned to the rural address at which you were living at that time.

[5] The Crown case at trial was that shortly after the shooting occurred, the Ford vehicle was returned to your address. You then gave instructions to other persons at the address to immediately begin sanitising the vehicle by wiping down surfaces to

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 176.

remove any fingerprints. You then told them to begin stripping the vehicle and removing any incriminating items from it.

[6] Your counsel contended that the vehicle was not returned to your address until 1 pm the next day. I do not accept that this is the case. One of the Crown witnesses was [REDACTED]. He was a Mongrel Mob prospect at that time and was present at your address on the evening of 11 February…

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 Rewiri

Details

AGLC: R v Rewiri [2023] NZHC 2954
Case: [2023] NZHC 2954
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rewiri was heard by Lang J in the High Court of New Zealand at Tauranga. Adrian Rewiri was sentenced for being an accessory after the fact to murder, with the maximum penalty being seven years imprisonment. The court had to decide on the starting point for the sentence, any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether the sentence should be cumulative with other sentences Rewiri was already serving. The court found that Rewiri arranged for the murder weapon to be cleaned and parts removed, preventing the police from obtaining crucial forensic evidence. Based on the evidence, the court set a starting point of 21 months imprisonment, similar to a previous case with analogous offending. There were no aggravating factors considered relevant, and mitigating factors led to a two-month reduction in the sentence. Although Rewiri offered to plead guilty early in the trial, this was not accepted as a mitigating factor. After considering totality principles, the court determined that a cumulative sentence of nine months imprisonment was appropriate.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence with the need to avoid disproportionate punishment, considering Rewiri's other sentences. Ultimately, Rewiri was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for being an accessory after the fact to murder, to be served cumulatively with a three-month sentence for drug supply offences. The reasoning was that while the accessory offence was serious, the overall sentence should reflect all Rewiri's criminal conduct without being excessively punitive. This balanced approach ensures justice is served while considering the totality of Rewiri's offending and the principles of sentencing.

Orders