R v Signer

[2012] NZHC 1423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2007-485-7843

CRI-2008-004-20749 [2012] NZHC 1423

THE QUEEN

v

URS PETER SIGNER EMILY FELICITY BAILEY

Hearing:         21 June 2012

Counsel:         DM Robinson for Crown

CWJ Stevenson and EA Hall for Urs Signer
VC Nisbet for Emily Bailey

Judgment:      21 June 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Counsel/Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland  [email protected] [email protected] and  [email protected]

V C Nisbet,  [email protected]

C Stevenson [email protected]

C B Hirschfeld,  [email protected]

R V URS PETER SIGNER HC AK CRI-2007-485-7843 [21 June 2012]

[1]      Mr Signer and Ms Bailey, when you were before the Court on 24 May I indicated that  I would  be prepared  to  impose a sentence of nine months  home detention on each of you if a suitable address were available.   I asked for home detention reports to be prepared.  Those have now been made available.  I am told that the address at which you currently live - 297 Mid Parihaka Road, Pungurehu – is suitable for you to carry out a sentence of home detention.  I am also told that both of you are regarded as suitable candidates for that sentence and that a sentence of home detention has the support of the Parihaka X Farm Trust which is the owner of the property.

[2]      In those circumstances, I propose to formally impose on you both a sentence on all charges of which you were convicted of nine months home detention.  Each of you is to return following sentence to the residential address of 297 Mid Parihaka Road, Pungurehu, arriving no later than 3.00 p.m. tomorrow – Friday, 22 June – and there to await the arrival of the home detention probation officer and a representative of the monitoring company.

[3]      You are both to reside at 297 Mid Parihaka Road, Pungurehu for the duration of the home detention sentence.   In your case, Mr Signer, I impose the additional condition, as recommended, that you attend any such employment as directed by the probation officer.

Forfeiture of firearms

[4]      I am asked by the Crown to complete one further outstanding matter which was not canvassed at the hearing on 24 May.   That is to order forfeiture of all firearms seized pursuant to s 69 of the Arms Act 1983.

[5]      Mr  Hirschfeld  appears  for  Mr  Iti  and  Mr  Kemara,  on  instructions  from Mr Fairbrother and Mr Bioletti.  He opposes orders for forfeiture on the grounds that there are outstanding appeals.   That by itself is not sufficient reason not to order forfeiture.  However, I will do so on the basis that, pending the final determination of

appeals in relation to this matter, no steps should be taken to destroy any of the firearms.

[6]      On that basis, I make an order for forfeiture of all firearms seized at the termination of Operation 8.