R v Ronaki

[2023] NZHC 2576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2023-419-000026

[2023] NZHC 2576

THE KING

v

HONE RONAKI

Hearing:	14 September 2023
Appearances:	J Hamilton for the Crown A Schulze for Mr Ronaki
Sentencing:	14 September 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Counsel:           A Schulze, Barrister, Rotorua

R v RONAKI [2023] NZHC 2576 [14 September 2023]

[1]    Mr Ronaki, you were one of 11 defendants who went to trial on charges arising out of rioting at Waikeria Prison over the New Year 2020/2021 period. Six of your co- defendants pleaded guilty to amalgamated charges prior to trial.

[2]    Four weeks into the trial you and six other defendants pleaded guilty to three representative charges: arson (with a danger to life),1 riotous damage,2 and assault with a weapon.3 The three charges are an amalgamation of charges in the Crown Charge Notice dated 28 June 2022.

Factual background

[3]    At the time you pleaded guilty you accepted the contents of a Summary of Facts dated 13 March 2023. Although you are familiar with the facts it is necessary for me to summarise them in my decision. I repeat the summary from my sentencing decision of Beau-James Paul,4 one of your co-offenders who, like you, pleaded guilty to the same three charges during the trial.

[4]    You were in custody in the High Security Facility at Waikeria Prison at the time of the riot.

[5]    On the morning of 29 December 2020 an incident occurred in one of the exercise yards, yard 116, when a prisoner refused to return a disposable razor (or razors) to a Corrections officer. Several other prisoners offered that prisoner their support. You were not one of those prisoners. You were not, in fact, in yard 116 at the time. When a Corrections officer told those in the yard that they would all be returned to their cells early if the razors were not surrendered, a number of prisoners in the yard told the Corrections officer they were not going anywhere and were ready for a fight. Eventually one razor was handed in, the situation was defused and tensions eased. The prisoners in yard 116 were then permitted to remain in the yard for the usual period.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 267(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.

2      Section 90. Maximum penalty: 7 years’ imprisonment.

3      Sections 202C(1)(a) and 66. Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment.

4      R v Paul [2023] NZHC 1985.

[6]    By around 1.00 pm a significantly more hostile atmosphere had developed in yard 116. Nine of the prisoners (the group) set in train the events that led to the riot. They damaged property in the yard. They lit fires on top of the wooden seats and structures inside the yard. Efforts made by Corrections officers and firefighters to extinguish the fires were thwarted by members of the group of nine shielding the fires with their bodies and various items. They also covered security cameras with wet toilet paper and threatened Corrections officers with assault if they attempted to enter the yard. Cups filled with urine were thrown at Corrections officers who approached the grille door.

[7]    The group of nine then escaped the yard. They did so through a hole in the mesh roofing that had been created by two of the group. Members of the group then smashed windows on the overbridge and set it, and a small guardroom, on fire. The group attempted to persuade the remaining 12 prisoners in the yard to join them but this was unsuccessful.

[8]    The nine prisoners then used a large metal battering ram to smash through cell windows and thereby liberate prisoners housed in the upper level of the East North Wing. The windows of the cells of 12 inmates were smashed in this way. Eight of the inmates in those cells chose to join the group on the roof. You were one of the eight.

[9]    The group of prisoners, now numbering 17, spread out and began making their way across rooftops that linked many buildings together, smashing property, breaking off padlocks to allow access to other areas of the roof, throwing objects towards the officers on the ground, with some lighting a number of fires in various places as they did so. I make it clear at this stage that in terms of the arson charge to which you pleaded guilty, the date for that  charge is limited to the last full day  of the riot,       2 January 2021.

[10]   As the situation escalated, specialist trained Corrections officers (referred to as the Advance, Control and Restraint (ACR) Team) were required to enter the East and West Wings for the purpose of freeing hundreds of prisoners locked inside their cells and other secure areas. By this time the areas were filled with smoke meaning prisoners were not visible to the officers in their cells. Many of the inmates were

unresponsive, requiring the officers to drag, and in some instances carry them, to get out to safety.

[11]   While ACR officers, together with further Corrections officers, were attempting to rescue inmates from inside the prison, they periodically came under attack from the prisoners on the roof, who used metal bars and pieces of wood to smash skylights, causing glass to fall upon the ACR officers and the prisoners they were in the process of evacuating.

[12]   As part of this phase the receiving office was set on fire with significant numbers of Corrections officers and prisoners inside, who were showered with bits of wood and glass from the roof. The nearby paint shop was also set alight.

[13]   From the early hours of 30 December 2020 and for much of the two days that followed, the group of prisoners on the roof were observed to conduct rooftop patrols, during the course of which they would occasionally throw objects at Corrections officers below. These included rocks, glass louvers and shards, fire extinguishers, bottles, metal bars and pieces of furniture.

[14]   During the period on the roof the prisoners used a battering ram to break down walls to obtain access to secure areas. The armoury was one of those areas accessed and the prisoners were able to seize protective body armour, shields and other equipment. The prisoners were observed to communicate using radios they had retrieved along with binoculars used as they carried out their patrols.

[15]   As the days continued the prisoners began to fortify an area behind the prison chapel on the roof of the Master Control building. Furniture was stacked in the stairwell leading up to the chapel as a barricade to prevent entry into the chapel roof. The chapel was a location the prisoners had taken as their sleeping quarters and was effectively a base from which they made patrols on to the roof.

[16]   On the evening of 1 January 2021 all but one of the prisoners on the roof, armed with various makeshift weapons, made their way off the roof and charged at Police and Corrections staff on the ground. It is not suggested on your behalf that you did

not come off the roof. It was only as a consequence of members of the Police Armed Offenders Squad (AOS) deploying a taser and rubber bullets that the prisoners retreated back up on to the roof. Further fires were then lit.

[17]   I come to the date of 2 January 2021, which is particularly relevant in relation to the arson charge to which you pleaded guilty.

[18]   On the evening of 2 January 2021, two teams of Corrections officers and the Police AOS entered the prison with the intention of going up the stairwell to access the chapel and the roof. As they were attempting to do so, the barricade of furniture on the stairwell was lit from above by prisoners and the two teams were forced to withdraw. An order was made for all staff members to evacuate in order to prevent their death or injury as fire began to sweep through the chapel in the High Security Facility.

[19]   Within a short time of the officers getting out of the building, flames were observed to be coming out of the windows and the building was fully alight. Upon the evacuation of the officers, prisoners on the roof pelted them with debris from piles collected earlier by them, including stones, plates and chunks of concrete, some of which struck the officers.

[20]   Some of the group used Corrections’ riot shields to approach the edge of the roof for this purpose, providing cover for other members of the group to throw items down on the retreating officers. Members of the group were observed to be wearing riot helmets, stab-resistant vests and other items of Corrections’ uniform.

[21]   These fires continued burning until the following morning and caused the complete destruction of the High Security Facility.

[22]   On the morning of 3 January 2021 the group of prisoners advised they were ready to surrender.

[23]   As a result of the offending several Corrections and Police staff sustained injuries and continue to be on stress leave. Currently, the Department of Corrections estimates the financial cost of the damage to be in the vicinity of $50 million.

Approach to sentencing

[24]   Sentencing is a two-stage process.5 First, I must determine a starting point. In doing so, I will take into account any aggravating and mitigating features of your offending. Then I will consider factors personal to you that may operate so as to adjust the starting point. This will include your personal background, your conviction history, the information in the Provision of Advice to the Courts (PAC) Report and the report under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) which you commissioned.

[25]   In sentencing you I must have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Act. In this case, the relevant purposes are accountability, denunciation, deterrence, protection of the community and rehabilitation.

[26]   As well as the usual matters the Court addresses at sentencing, another issue I will need to consider today is what reduction, if any, should be made to the sentence I consider appropriate because of your recent sentencing on charges arising out of Police Operation Silk.

Victim impact statement

[27]   I have received a victim impact statement. I have referred to it in my other sentencing decisions but it is necessary to set it out again here. Because there were so many Corrections officers involved who were affected by your offending, the victim impact statement was prepared on a global basis by Terry Buffery, the Regional Commissioner for the Central Region of the Department of Corrections. He says many officers were exposed to smoke inhalation as they had to enter a burning building in order to save the lives of the 200-plus men who were locked in their cells. Mr Buffery says if the prisoners had not been evacuated when they were, there is no doubt that lives would have been lost. Having heard the evidence at trial, I agree with

5      Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583 at [46].

Mr Buffery’s assessment. What he says is not an overstatement. Having said that, I accept the arson charge to which you pleaded guilty was for fires on 2 January 2021.

[28]   Additionally, the immediate response to the incident required resources to be mobilised from around the country. Due to the timing of the events, many staff and their families had holiday plans severely interrupted. Mr Buffery further reports the many physical and psychological injuries suffered by Corrections officers from the incident. Some staff lost personal property that was on the site. Welfare support for staff continues. Hundreds of prisoners also lost personal property in the fire including family photographs and in one case his daughter’s ashes.

[29]   The destruction of the High Security Facility has also meant the prison is no longer able to receive remand prisoners from the Bay of Plenty and South Waikato. As a consequence, remand prisoners are housed further away from the courts in which they appear and their families. This continues to affect those prisoners. A similar impact continues for hundreds of Corrections staff who have had to be relocated from their normal place of work.

Starting point

[30]   The charge of arson (with a danger to life) is the lead, or the most serious offence. I will set a starting point for the arson charge and then apply an uplift for the other charges.

[31]   There is no tariff or guideline judgment for arson. The appropriate starting point is set having regard to the aggravating features of the offending and by comparison with similar cases. In sentencing you, the Court has the benefit of sentences passed on some of your co-offenders. I will have regard to those sentences to ensure parity as between co-offenders when setting the starting point.

Crown submissions

[32]   Ms Hamilton, for the Crown, submits the aggravating features of your offending are: the use of actual and threatened violence; the extent of loss and damage; the scale of the offending; that the victims were prison officers acting in the course of

their duty; the risk of injury, particularly during the chapel fire on 2 January 2021; and the impact on the victims.

[33]   Ms Hamilton submits that having regard to the magnitude of the offending and risk to life as a result, the aggravating features present and your role in the offending together with parity considerations, the appropriate global starting point for your offending is nine years and six months’ imprisonment consistent with the approach taken for Mr Huritu and Mr Paul, and now other co-offenders who have been sentenced.

[34]   Ms Hamilton also refers to other cases which I will reference in a footnote when my decision is typed up.6

Defendant’s submissions

[35]   Responding to the Crown’s submissions, your counsel Mr Schulze accepts the following aggravating features were present: use of violence; extent of loss; scale of offending; impact on victims; and the risk of injury. However, in terms of the extent of loss, the risk of injury or risk to life, and property damage, Mr Schulze submits these factors must be restricted to the events of 2 January 2021. I accept that applies to the arson charge but it does not apply to the other two charges which are for offending between 29 December 2020 and 3 January 2021.

[36]   Mr Schulze also submits the issue of parity is relevant given the Court’s sentencing decisions for Leon Huritu7 and Beau-James Paul.8 Mr Schulze submits there are practical difficulties in advocating that a different starting point should be adopted for you. But he says that sentencing must proceed on your criminal involvement in terms of s 66 of the Crimes Act 1961. Mr Schulze submits there is no direct evidence of you using weapons or causing riotous damage or being responsible for setting fires in the chapel.

6      Howarth v R [2010] NZCA 523; Mouat v Police HC Gisborne CRI-2006-416-20, 11 December 2006 at [8]; R v Z CA138/00, 27 June 2000; R v Honan (1988) 3 CRNZ 532 (CA); R v Lucas- Edmonds [2009] NZCA 193, [2009] 3 NZLR 493; Tryselaar v R [2012] NZCA 353 at [18]; Kepu v R [2011] NZCA 104 at [19]; and Ratu v R [2016] NZCA 97.

7      R v Huritu [2023] NZHC 1960.

8      R v Paul, above n 4.

Discussion

[37]   When I set the starting point for both Leon Huritu and Beau-James Paul I took into account that they were not present in yard 116 when the riot began and also the fact that the charge of arson they faced was only for 2 January 2021. Both of those points apply to you. For that reason, rather than adopting a starting point for the arson charge of 11 years’ imprisonment (as I adopted for other co-offenders) I adopted a starting point of nine years’ imprisonment for Mr Huritu and Mr Paul. That addresses the submission made by Mr Schulze that the arson offending was in relation to a single charge (or single date) only.

[38]   As I said when sentencing Mr Huritu and Mr Paul, the lives of members of the Corrections ACR Team and members of the AOS squad who had entered the High Security Facility on 2 January 2021, were put at risk. I agree with the Crown that the fact that the victims were acting in the course of their duty is an aggravating factor.

[39]   I do not see any distinction  between  you  and  Mr  Huritu,  Mr  Paul  and  Mr Larkins9 as far as the initial starting point on the charge of arson. I note that you were seen to be present in the chapel in the period immediately prior to the chapel fire but the Crown accepts there is no direct evidence of you starting the fire.

[40]   I do not consider the fact that you are for sentence on the basis as discussed by counsel, that you were a secondary party to the arson by assisting or encouraging, or by virtue of s 66(2), reduces the extent to which you can be held responsible for causing risk to life.

[41]   The Crown position on the riotous damage charge for all of those who pleaded guilty during the trial was that you were all principals. It seems that there has been some variation between co-offenders as to the basis of the assault with a weapon charge. For example, in his sentencing, Mr Larkins accepted he was guilty as a principal on that charge under s 66(1). But whether the sentencing is on the basis of  s 66(1) as a secondary party or s 66(2) which was the discussion here today, I consider that is a distinction without a difference.

9      R v Larkins [2023] NZHC 2545.

[42]   Finally, the fire damage to the High Security Facility on 2 January 2021 was significant. The High Security Facility was completely destroyed.

[43]   Accordingly, I adopt a global starting point of nine years and six months’ imprisonment.

[44]There are no mitigating features of the offending.

Personal aggravating features – previous convictions

[45]   The Court is required to take into account the number, seriousness, date, relevance and nature of any previous convictions.10 Prior convictions may be taken into account in three ways: as an indicator of character and culpability; as showing the need for a greater deterrent response from the court; and as an indicator of the risk of re-offending.11

[46]   Ms Hamilton submits that your criminal history prior to your convictions arising out of Operation Silk (which I will consider when I come to the issue of totality) includes comparatively benign entries. The Crown’s position is that no uplift is necessary to reflect this history. However, having regard to the fact that you were remanded in custody at the time of this offending, Ms Hamilton submits a modest uplift is appropriate.

[47]Mr Schulze submits that no uplift is warranted.

[48]   Your history of previous convictions in New Zealand, while it could not be described as short, does not contain any convictions for offending of a violent nature

– except for one charge of common assault in 2019 for which you were fined $250 and ordered to pay reparations of $300, and two charges of unlawfully presenting a firearm in 2004 and 1995. For the 1995 charge you were sentenced to five months of non-residential periodic detention and for the 2004 charge, community work for   200 hours. Your conviction history in Australia records offences in 2017 and 2018. It

10     Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(j).

11     R v Casey [1931] NZLR 594 (CA) at [597]; Kushell v Police [2012] NZHC 2380 at [10].

is in the main, drug offending and associated offending. The offending for which you are being sentenced today is of a different nature and scale to your previous offending.

[49]   As to the issue raised by the Crown that you were remanded in custody at the time of this offending, that is relevant to the starting point. I do not take it into account here.

[50]Accordingly, there will be no uplift for your prior conviction history.

Personal mitigating factors

[51]   Mr Schultz submits the following discounts should be given: 10 per cent for your guilty plea; 20 per cent for your personal circumstances; and a reduction in your end sentence for totality reasons having regard to the 16 year sentence of imprisonment imposed in August this year for your offending arising out of Operation Silk.

[52]I address each of those matters in turn.

Guilty plea

[53]   Mr Schulze says that the Crown’s position prior to trial was that it would have accepted a plea to one charge of arson as long as it reflected participation in all the arsons that occurred between 29 December 2020 and 2 January 2021. He says resolution was only achieved once the Crown accepted a plea to a charge of arson confined to 2 January 2021. He says that position was not reached until the fourth week of the trial.

[54]   On the other hand, Ms Hamilton submits the Crown made it clear prior to trial there would need to be a plea to a charge involving arson. Prior to trial no defence counsel promoted a guilty plea to an arson charge on the basis of the charge to which a guilty plea was entered during the trial. Ms Hamilton submits that other defendants released from the upper cells (as you were) who resolved the charges against them at the same time and on the same basis as you received a credit of five per cent to reflect the entry of those guilty pleas. She says that a like approach is accordingly appropriate.

[55]   I accept that some credit should be given and I adopt the approach I took when sentencing both Mr Huritu and Mr Paul. In sentencing Mr Huritu I said:12

[66]      You pleaded guilty (along with six other co-defendants from the Mongols gang) on 13 March 2023. That was after four weeks of trial (the trial had commenced on 13 February 2023). After your guilty plea the trial continued with four co-defendants.

[67]      I am prepared to give you a five per cent discount for your guilty plea for two reasons. First, although the guilty plea was entered after the trial commenced, it was nevertheless an acknowledgement of your guilt.13 Second, your guilty plea resulted in a saving of the cost of the trial to the State, albeit a relatively small reduction in cost.14 The trial continued after your plea for a further period of almost eight weeks. Guilty verdicts were delivered by the jury on 4 May 2023. Your guilty plea did not result in a reduction in the evidence called by the Crown as much of the evidence applied to all defendants. However, I accept that cross-examination, possible applications at the end of the Crown case, and counsel’s addresses would have extended the trial had you not pleaded guilty.

[56]Accordingly, I give you a five per cent discount for your guilty plea.

Personal circumstances

[57]   You have provided the Court with a report by Shelley Turner under s 27 of the Act for your sentencing on 17 August 2023 in Operation Silk. The report is equally relevant to your sentencing today. It is a detailed document. It was compiled based on an interview with you and your long-term partner of 27 years. I can only capture its essence here.

[58]The Court also has the benefit of a PAC report.

[59]You are 46 years old and identify as Māori of Te Arawa descent.

[60]   In short, you described to Ms Turner an upbringing characterised by poverty, violence and intergenerational gang affiliation.

12 R v Huritu, above n 7.

13 In Botha v R [2015] NZCA 196 a discount of six months was given for a guilty plea mid-trial after the complainant had been cross-examined. The basis for the discount was “extraordinary remorse”. The discount was not challenged on appeal. Compare R v Haine [2013] NZHC 66, where a discount was refused for a guilty plea mid-trial.

14 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [45].

[61]   You were raised in a whāngai arrangement and do not know who your biological parents are, although you know you were whānau. You did not have the benefit of growing up with grandparents. They had all passed away.

[62]   Your father was described as a hardworking man but his other side was that he was an angry and violent man. You were the victim of your father’s violence and you also witnessed violence by your father towards your mother. You say you were exposed to arguments and fights between your parents on a daily basis and you did not realise that this was not normal behaviour until you entered your own relationship years later.

[63]   The s 27 report paints a picture of a very disadvantaged upbringing. You never sat down and had a meal with your family at a table and you made a bed for yourself in various wrecked vehicles on the family’s property.

[64]   You attended primary school and intermediate school in Te Puke before going to Te Puke High School. You left High School within a year of having started without any formal qualifications. This has made it very difficult for you in terms of finding employment.

[65]Your background led into youth offending and appearances in the Youth Court.

[66]   You were exposed to drug use from an early age. Growing up around cannabis normalised this substance. You began using yourself during your early adolescent years. That became a gateway drug to other substances. Around 1999/2000 you tried methamphetamine for the first time. You described to Ms Turner a lifestyle that revolved around your methamphetamine use which resulted in imprisonment.

[67]   Around 2004 you moved to Australia and your drug consumption persisted. That again resulted in imprisonment that eventually led to  your  deportation  to  New Zealand as a 501 deportee in 2018. You started using methamphetamine again.

[68]   Gang affiliation was also prominent in your upbringing. One of your uncles was the founder of the Filthy Few Motorcycle Club and many of your extended

whānau joined the club. You grew up exposed to your uncles’ lifestyles and as a young man aspired to be like them.

[69]   When you were first imprisoned around 1993 you joined the Mongrel Mob. While you were in Australia you joined the Bandidos Motorcycle Club. When you were deported in 2018 you joined the Bandidos Motorcycle Club in New Zealand. You and others then started the Mongols Motorcycle Club in New Zealand.

[70]   Following deportation you moved back into the environment in which you had grown up. Perhaps unsurprisingly, you resumed your earlier connections with the consequences being your offending in Operation Silk.

[71]   I am satisfied that there is at least a causative connection between your background and your current offending. There has been deprivation in your life and together with other factors I have referred to, it has constrained your individual choice, including a choice not to offend.15

[72]   Mr Schulze submits that a 20 per cent discount is appropriate on the basis that was the discount given by Harland J when sentencing you last month in Operation Silk.16

[73]   For reasons of consistency Mr Schulze submits the same discount should be applied.

[74]   Ms Hamilton submits that a 15 per cent discount would be the appropriate level.

[75]   Although the written sentencing remarks in Operation Silk have not yet been issued, I am aware that the 20 per cent discount was made up of: 10 per cent for personal and cultural factors and 10 per cent for addiction. The 10 per cent for addiction was highly relevant in Operation Silk which involved methamphetamine offending.

15     Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [115].

16     The written copy of the sentencing decision in Operation Silk is not yet available.

[76]   In this case, while your methamphetamine addiction is part of your background, it does not have the same relevance as it did in your offending in Operation Silk.

[77]I therefore give you a 15 per cent discount for personal background factors.

End sentence

[78]   Mr Ronaki I have adopted a global starting point of nine years and six months’ imprisonment. I have made allowances of: five per cent for your guilty plea and 15 per cent for your personal circumstances. That is a total of 20 per cent. Calculated in months from a global starting point of nine years and six months’ imprisonment, that is a reduction of 22.8 months (rounded up in your favour to 23 months/1 year and   11 months). The end sentence is therefore seven years and seven months’ imprisonment.

Totality

[79]   At the time of your offending you were on remand awaiting trial on charges arising out of Operation Silk. You pleaded guilty to some charges prior to trial and were found guilty by the jury on other charges. All up you were sentenced by Harland J on 17 August 2023 on 107 charges, almost all of which involved methamphetamine offending.

[80]   Justice Harland imposed a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 40 per cent.

[81]   Mr Schulze accepts that the present offending for which you are being sentenced today is discrete and warrants a cumulative sentence on the 16 years already imposed. The issue, he says, is the quantum. He submits the range would appear to be a cumulative sentence of between four years six months and six  years,17  resulting

17 Mr Schulze adopts that range on the basis of the totality discount given to Leon Huritu, who was sentenced by Harland J in Operation Silk after his sentencing on the same charges as Mr Ronaki for the Waikeria Prison riots (Harland J’s written decision for Mr Huritu is not yet available), and the sentencing of Malachi Naua-Tuilotolava by Downs J for his role in the Waikeria Prison riots where the Judge gave a discount for totality reasons in R v Naua-Tuilotolava [2023] NZHC 1105.

in an end sentence of between 22 years and 20 years and six months (adding the two sentences together).

[82]   Mr Schulze asks that the additional sentence be kept to the minimum of four years and six months. He submits that would reflect your criminality and also such a sentence is still a lengthy sentence of imprisonment. He says, adopting the words of Downs J in R v Naua-Tuilotolava, this would not “constitute an invitation to inmates serving long sentences to riot with impunity”.18

[83]   The Crown position is that a modest adjustment might be considered appropriate.

[84]Section 85(2) of the Act provides:

If cumulative sentences of imprisonment are imposed, whether individually or in combination with concurrent sentences, they must not result in a total period of imprisonment wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending.

[85]   This principle applies both to sentencing for proximate offending and also to crimes committed while already in custody for other offences.19

[86]   The issue, accordingly, is whether the sentence I impose is wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending.

[87]   I consider a reduction, to what would otherwise be an overall sentence of     23 years and seven months’ imprisonment (16 years plus seven years and seven months) is appropriate. However, I further consider that any reduction would need to be limited having regard to the accepted principle that violent offending committed while in prison should attract a stern response.20

18     R v Naua-Tuilotolava, above n 17, at [10].

19     R v Ngamoki [2022] NZCA 171 at [25].

20     At [31] citing Waru v R [2019] NZCA 347 at [31]. See also Tryselaar v R, above n 6, at [18] and

R v Connelly [2010] NZCA 52 at [31].

[88]   I consider a reduction of two years and six months is consistent with the sentencing principles I have referred to.  That brings your end sentence to one of  five years and one month’s imprisonment.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[89]   The Crown has not sought a minimum period of imprisonment in your case. Mr Schulze submits that a further MPI should not be imposed given you are already subject to a 40 per cent MPI in your sentence from Operation Silk.

[90]I do not impose an additional minimum period.

Sentence

[91]   Mr Ronaki would you please stand. On the charge of arson (with a danger to life) you are sentenced to five years and one month’s imprisonment. That sentence is cumulative on the 16 year sentence you are presently serving. On each of the other two charges you are sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. You will serve those sentences concurrently with each other and with the sentence for arson.

[92]   I discharge you under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the remaining charges that you faced arising out of the riot at Waikeria Prison.

Gordon J